Investor Who Made Billions Not Targeted in Goldman Suit

[Turborama]

Source: NYT

Three and half years ago, a New York hedge fund manager with a bearish view on the housing market was pounding the pavement on Wall Street. Eager to increase his bets against subprime mortgages, the investor, John A. Paulson, canvassed firm after firm, looking for new ways to profit from home loans that he was sure would go sour.

Only a few investment banks agreed to help him. One was Deutsche Bank. The other was the mighty Goldman Sachs.

Mr. Paulson struck gold. His prescience made him billions and transformed him from a relative nobody into something of a celebrity on Wall Street and in Washington.

But now his brassy bets have thrust Mr. Paulson into an uncomfortable spotlight. On Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Goldman for neglecting to tell its customers that mortgage investments they were buying consisted of pools of dubious loans that Mr. Paulson had selected because they were highly likely to fail. By betting against the pool of questionable mortgage bonds, Mr. Paulson made $1 billion when they collapsed just a few months later, the S.E.C. said. Investors, who bought what regulators are essentially calling a pig in a poke, lost the same amount.

Mr. Paulson, 54, was not named as a defendant in the S.E.C. suit, but his role in devising the instrument that caused $1 billion in losses for Goldman’s customers is detailed in the complaint. Robert Khuzami, the director of enforcement at the S.E.C., explained that, unlike Goldman, the manager of the hedge fund, Paulson & Company, had not made misrepresentations to investors buying the security, known as a collateralized debt obligation.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/business/17abacus.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=igw

[frankenforpres]

1. he commited no crime

he saw the crazy loans banks were making. Knew they couldnt be repaid. Set out to figure how to bet against them. Some firms obliged. Goldman selling instrument they knew were bad is the crime

[dipsydoodle]

2. It wasn't selling it that was a crime so much as

it was not telling other customers what was occuring.

[elias7]

16. That was not something Paulsen did

That's what GS is in trouble for...

[rpannier]

3. +1

Agreed

[DeSwiss]

4. Exactly. n/t

[denverbill]

13. +1. Unless he did something I'm not aware of.

Pumping and dumping is what Goldman did. Advising people to buy what they themselves were trying to dump.

Making a bet that a stock/bond/other instrument will go down isn't a crime.

Still, a 70% top marginal tax rate on capital gains would make me feel better about this situation.

[WestSeattle2]

25. Exactly. From everything we've learned about Goldman Sachs

in the last year, I can't believe anyone would do business with them. Sleaze is an understatement. Senior management should all be in prison - 25 years to life.

[scentopine]

30. moved reply to right thread -nt

[scentopine]

31. Paulson has not been formally charged with a crime, that doesn't mean he comitted no crime

These people also committed no crime-

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36599286/ns/us_news-crime_a...

Thank goodness Mr. Paulson's best interests are so well represented by the US Government and here on DU. Mr. Paulson is no doubt appreciative and grateful for all the support shown here.

Now enough of this, let's move forward, nothing to see here, show's over.

[notadmblnd]

44. I would think that at the very least- Paulson conspired with Goldman to do something illegal

Would Goldman have committed this illegal act on their own if Paulson hadn't come up with it for them?

[scentopine]

49. Agree - these fuckers knew exactly what they were doing. -

it is inconceivable to me that this planning occurred in an hands-off bubble with Paulson just an innocent guy trying to make an honest dollar. The logic behind all the proclamations of innocence almost seems orchestrated.

[formercia]

5. He's still a co-conspirator

If Goldman gets convicted.....I don't think he will enjoy his loot for very long.

[elias7]

17. why?

He is not a co-conspirator, and he will not lose his money. Are you just making things up, or do you have any legal basis for your opinion?

[SOS]

36. Paulson selected the mortgages for the CDOs and paid GS to create them

"The details unearthed by the S.E.C. in its investigation show a deep involvement by Mr. Paulson in the creation of the investment, known as Abacus 2007-AC1.
For example, he approached Goldman about constructing and marketing the debt security.
After analyzing risky mortgages made on homes where the housing markets had overheated, Mr. Paulson went to Goldman to talk about how he could bet against those loans.
He focused his analysis on adjustable-rate loans taken out by borrowers with relatively low credit scores and turned up more than 100 loan pools that he considered vulnerable, the S.E.C. said.
Mr. Paulson then asked Goldman to put together a portfolio of these pools, or others like them that he could wager against. He paid $15 million to Goldman for creating and marketing the Abacus deal, the complaint says."

Sounds petty crooked.
He may still be charged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/business/17abacus.html

[daleo]

42. It sounds like he and GS were in on the scam together

A billion dollar grift.

[scentopine]

59. Exactly, trillion dollar grift - nothing of this magnitude is designed in a vacuum

Here is a great book on the first savings and loan disaster - this documents how a few wealthy wall street insiders perpetrated what was at the time one of the most complex financial frauds in history and sets the stage for Enron and today's wall street crisis. http://www.amazon.com/America-Wrong-Donald-L-Barlett/dp/0836270010

The lessons of S&L were soon forgotten and we are still decades away from paying down the tax payer debt from this disaster from the 1980's. Like today, back then there was almost no justice served to the perpetrators of massive fraud, although there was proven conspiracy to manipulate the market and defraud investors. The details of S&L and Enron history tells us it is highly probable that Paulson and GS were in collusion (I recall there were plenty of dems claiming that Authur Anderson was innocent in the Enron disaster). Goldman has the smartest people in the country and they knew that Paulson was handing them a bag of shit. They have half an office building in Manhattan manipulating the market while shorting stocks - this was just another innovation to that end. Its one thing to fuck over 100,000 retail investors. its another to cause a massive economic depression world wide that could only be averted only by flooding wall street with tax payer cash. Just like S&L, just like Enron.

SEC could give a rat's ass about the retail investor and their 401k. That' how Madoff and Stanford got away with it for so long. If it wasn't for Bear Stearn's Madoff and Stanford would have never been caught because the government, while singing the praises of deregulation and the free market, just won't protect individual investors from fraud, nor will the government prosecute high ranking wall street officials. They'll go after some version of scooter libby while the real perps get a walk.

After I posted above I found this... LOL! Who could have predicted...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4348554

[xchrom]

6. Recommend

[liberal N proud]

7. I think this all represents the trickle down economics the right embraces

The only thing that ever trickles down in economics is the losses.

As we have always known, the rich get richer, the rest of us pay for it and there is no consequences for the rich.

[CreatureFeature]

8. Bernie Maddoff with the Moolah is paying for his crimes.

I am STILL shocked about that one. He must have ripped off the wrong people.

[WinkyDink]

9. He's alive, right? Not paying enough, IMO, for destroying lives.

[CreatureFeature]

11. The death penalty for stealing? harsh!

[dotymed]

15. Well, in a way.....

I disagree with the death penalty, but if a person robs a BANK (OMG!) he/she will usually be punished harsher than a murderer.....That is sick. All of these Banksters running around stealing from us? I'd guess that less than 1/2 of 1%, are even questioned by the "law", let alone prosecuted. We are stinking proletariats, we deserve shit. That is what our corporate government shows us daily. Collateral damage.

[liberation]

29. Dead penalty is harsh, life in prison however should be his sentence

when you're 65 and about to retire, and some douche makes all your life savings for retirement evaporate... meaning you have to work till the day you die, I am sure you won't be as sympathetic.

[CreatureFeature]

39. I understand your sentiments and frustrations....

We have a two-tiered system of justice, one for most of us and another for the elites.

[haele]

37. There's been a few stories in the news about a marginal personality

that had been conned into believing that the sub-prime he or she "qualified" for to refinance for, say, repairs, or college, or just to buy the house of their dreams either killing themselves or killing their families and then themselves when it all went south because of Wall Street shenannigans.
It doesn't matter if a person applys for a loan they can't afford or shouldn't be qualified for - they can always be rejected, especially since there's all sorts of Credit Rating sources out there that lenders can use to verify income and spending habits, like in a standard home loan.
The borrower is not holding a gun to the head of the lender. Even the house flippers that drove averge property prices up weren't holding guns to lenders once prices started going up past the ability of the flippers to bite the bullet and break even on house once the market became out of reach for the average American. Just averaging out where wages and local economis are, property values should never have risen more than about 50K - 75K per 1/4 acre lot from 2000 levels.

The lenders and investment vehicles were the ones behind the crash, and the ruined or lost lives that the subsequent chaos brought about.

Here's my point - if I am part of a scam to get you to buy a highly desirable product I know had a 75 - 85% chance of maiming or killing you, then made investments based on that product maiming or killing you, am I culpible when you are killed or maimed because you let hope blind you and couldn't resist my sweet talking ways?
If Paulson willingly worked with investment firms and banks to make personally money on a property bubble crash, then he should be sitting in a docket right next to the brokers who made billions pushing confusing toxic vehicles on an unwitting public - and buying political cover to continue doing so.

Haele

[IndianaGreen]

10. Perhaps he is a major contributor to the 2-major parties

Low level accountants will go to jail while the financiers with political connections go scot free.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. "An Overzealous Goldman Aide To Do Time"

Or some such drivel.

[Number_Six]

14. He can be sued anyways

Civil court and civil complaint. Wait for it.

[elias7]

20. sued for what?

he committed no crime. Read up...

[Demeter]

18. Not Yet

I have great faith in Andrew Cuomo. The man is the Public's Defender!

This is only the tip of the iceberg. This Titanic fraud is going to go down, with all hands. No lifeboats, either, for First Class.

[pschoeb]

19. Greedspan was at hedge fund Paulson right when they were making all

the great cash.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/2782593/Greenspan-joins-hedge-fund-Paulson.html

[Gin]

21. but I thought Greenspan didn't see any of this coming.

[pschoeb]

23. Quite a story from Greedspan huh, but since it was hard for him

To make major money on the upswing of the bubble he created, he definitely wanted to be in on the takings during the downswing when he was safely out of office.

[pschoeb]

22. Greedspan was also advising deutsche bank starting Aug 2007

nt

[geckosfeet]

24. For those who lost money - this is where it went. To this guy and to institutions

that made the same calculations.

They bet that the crappy debt obligations that your banks invested in/bought on your behalf would collapse. Your banks were covered so they didn't care one way or the other. You lose. They and their cronies win.

Whats wrong with this picture? Why is this type of financial practice not against the law?

[Skink]

26. He should be given immunity anyway so we can get the whole story.

[Gin]

27. maybe the investors who lost money will sue since it was fraud

I keep hearing GS only made 15 million on this deal...that was just on the Paulson fee...what about what they made/took from investors betting that it was a good deal?

By the way....are the 2 Paulsons related?

[Divine Discontent]

33. putting the two names in google in quotes brings up this Paulsons wiki page, so you know,

and no, they're not related.

[scentopine]

28. If you sell a gun, following legally accepted practices

and the buyer tells you that he intends to use the gun to kill a bunch of people, isn't the gun seller liable and a legal remedy available involving punitive damages against the gun seller?

Beats me. But, it doesn't matter. Paulson has enough money to tie up the court system for 100 years. There are two justice systems at work in America, one for preferred shareholders and one for those of us who hold common stock.

Unlike Madoff, any crime by Paulson would require tape recorded and written evidence and as Maddof has told us, the number one rule for evading the SEC is to never write anything down.

Torturers are also said to have committed no crime, Bush, Cheney, Rove are said to have committed no crime.

But an 18 yr old kid could end up with 5 yrs in prison for getting caught with a bag of pot.

That's American justice. Blind, indeed.

[TheWebHead]

32. Paulson didn't commit a crime

but neither did Goldman, imo, which is why it's a civil action and likely taken for political purposes, which I don't like no matter coming from a D or R administration. You have two large money interests on two sides of a trade and an independent party examine the arrangement, the SEC charge that those buying the CDO should've known Paulson was on the other side is crazy. If I buy a stock, does my brokerage have an obligation to tell me all their clients short the stock? Hell no. And if my investment decisions were being shared with other clients I'd pull my money. I wish the media covering this story would talk with traders from other firms familiar with these arrangements rather than professors, bloggers, print journalists, TV lawyers, and DC insiders.

[scentopine]

34. They haven't been charged with a crime. There is a difference.

This as close to ground zero of a world wide disaster that put 100 million people out of work around the world, ruined retirement savings and will cost trillions of tax payer money welfare to these pricks.

Democrats and republicans have been changing the laws to benefit the rich since Reagan and it continues today with neo-lib/neo-con trickle down policy.

Civil remedies are the only ones available since the criminal justice system has been neutered in the area of wall street activities.

Even Madoff was free to do whatever he wanted for years and years, Madoff cooperated because he was at high risk for being assassinated.

Dead men have no chance for appeal. He made a calculated decision.

[jmowreader]

35. I really don't think Paulson did anything wrong...

John Paulson was running the financial division of the More Balls than Brains Club. If you've got an EXTREMELY aggressive portfolio, you buy into this insane paper because there's a real good chance you'll lose your money but if the bet works you make out like a bandit. Please note Paulson's a hedge fund manager, and some hedge funds are configured in such a way you wear a tuxedo and drink martinis (shaken, not stirred, as stirring bruises the gin) when you buy into them.

The problem was Goldman springing this shit on the general investing public. Most people who go into a BANK expect it to be a BANK and not Off-Track Betting. Paulson & Company has always been very up-front with the fact the ONLY difference between Paulson & Company and Belmont Park is the smell of horse shit. Goldman Sachs was pushing these things as no riskier than any other security, which is...well, horse shit; they don't work without extreme risk.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Shaking bruises the gin

Stirring does not. That's why James Bond's order is asinine.

The suit involves a simple principle: you must disclose materially relevant information. In this case, the materially relevant information had two parts: 1) Paulson was involved in the selection of the reference portfolio; Goldman's transaction document explicitly and deceptively excluded that known, materially relevant information, and went further by representing ACA as sole selector of the underlying collateral (to wit, the subprime mortgage-backed bonds); 2) Paulson selected the RMBS that would make up the reference portfolio precisely because they believed those bonds would lose value (because their underlying collateral would become worthless), and took out insurance on the synthetic CDO (specifically, a credit default swap contract); this was a pile of shit in search of a counterparty - and Goldman knew this. Now, no reasonably prudent investor would buy securities if they knew that the party involved in selecting the collateral was betting on the loss of value of that collateral. That's why Goldman had to falsely represent ACA as the sole selector of the reference portfolio. Nobody in the world would have bought the CDO otherwise.

Paulson has not been sued because Paulson has no regulatory or legal duty to disclose information, since they weren't selling the actual CDO. Goldman was, and did have a duty, and they deceptively and with foreknowledge sought to avoid that duty, and they did so because they knew the security they were trying to sell would have no buyer if they had disclosed this information.

This is, in essence, no different from a supermarket forging a new sell-by date on a gallon of spoiling milk. Nobody would buy a gallon of milk that had passed its sell-by date - you'd have no counterparty. The supermarket has a duty. But imagine somebody was betting that the buyer of the milk would be unable to drink the whole gallon. That's what Paulson was doing, and they have no duty to disclose anything.

The relative risk of a bank and a hedge fund has nothing to do with why the charges were filed as they were. Goldman had a duty, Paulson did not. That's because Goldman was the seller, and Paulson was not.

[scentopine]

41. This assumes there were no discussions between

Paulson and Goldman about defrauding investors and withholding information. Given the circumstances, and the familiarity and money at stake, it is nearly impossible to believe that Mr. Paulson was not a co-conspirator in this process. If Paulson knew his product would be used to defraud investors or otherwise used to commit a crime there is most certainly grounds for at least a civil suit including penalties to prohibit him from trading.

Lack of formal charges doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. This whole event stinks almost as bad as the Paulson apologists on this board.

What next an Army of John Yoo apologists here on DU defending the legal ground for not prosecuting torture?

Jesus - the democratic party is so fucking lame.

[anigbrowl]

43. Unless there's evidence of such discussions, there's nothing to charge him with

Jesus - the democratic party is so fucking lame.

I would prefer we not waste time or money on a case that is obviously doomed to fail due to insufficient evidence. Now if someone at GS decides to turn state's evidence at some later date, then it might be appropriate to revisit the question.

[scentopine]

53. Obvious? As determined by a NYT puff piece? Do you

really believe its case closed? Holy shit they are getting at the root of the worst case of fraud in the history of mankind and we don't want to spend the resources? Oh that's right we are too busy fighting wars and bailing out wall street to have anything left over to actually investigate those who started the wars and caused the fraud.

Well now, time to put my smoking jacket back on and head to the club. Niles shot a three under today! And he bought a $400 dollar bottle of single malt to celebrate... ah, nothing soothes the soul like other peoples money! We are going to toast our brave boys in the war! If it wasn't for that, we'd be totally fucked by all this nasty wall street business. Three cheers for the war!

[anigbrowl]

57. No, as determined by my own careful reading of the legal filings

Resources are not the issue. There is a reason the allegations made by the SEC are so narrow and specific.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. It's useless

Your interlocutor will try to talk about everything except the actual case and filings.

Clearly, there's a reason the charge is so narrow, and there's also the suggestion that that narrow charge is designed to expand the scope of the charges. But you'll just get responses about "evil" and "the war" and other stuff of this kind, rather than any discussion about the actual case. You'll also be called a "Paulson apologist" and various other insults, at which point your interlocutor will accuse you of "making it personal." It's a fruitless endeavor.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. Slow down there, Sparky

It is obvious that one or more parties at Paulson conspired with Tourre to defraud investors. It's obvious that unnamed parties at Goldman were also deeply involved in the fraud (the seeming goal being Jonathan Egol). I'd suggest that perhaps two junior associates, a senior associate, and one partner at whatever law firm handled the deal (S&C?) would also be on the hook for criminal fraud conspiracy. But what's obvious is not necessarily provable under rules of evidence. What is clearly provable at this point is that Tourre and other Goldman representatives knowingly misrepresented the selection of the reference portfolio, and that they did that in order to deceive potential counterparties. That's provable in the sense that there is actual evidence for that limited charge. The whole suit is clearly designed to move Tourre and perhaps others not yet named into the witness bracket, and pursue the criminal charges as more evidence becomes available. That is, if you want to avoid another muck up like the Bear Stearns job.

Save your fist-shaking populism for somebody who cares about such nonsense. Start thinking about the actual mechanisms under which federal securities fraud prosecutions actually take place. Just because it's obvious, doesn't mean you can prove it. That's what these folks seem to be working toward. In terms of what there is evidence for now, there is no duty for Paulson to violate, since they are not the sellers. We shall see if further evidence (not hunches, but evidence) emerges going forward. I assumed nothing, though you clearly did. I'd like to see nothing better than John Paulson in federal prison.

[scentopine]

48. I'll shake my fist at the vermin who infect this board with

smug centrist nonsense and insipid insults stolen from a lost episode of father knows best. My remarks withstand. Those on this thread who are so quick to declare his innocence and non-criminal activity in this colossal and criminal failure of governance and justice are staring into the face of perfect evil and making exceptions. I didn't declare his guilt or innocence. I will declare his evil. And I am only critical of those rushing to judge this man innocent based on a NYT puff piece. Just like the neo-dems who rallied around the 2nd Iraq war; based on NYT puff piece hand-written by the previous administration. History repeats itself, I have no reason to believe that the NYT is any different now than it was then.

I don't really give a flying fuck whether you care or not. There is more than enough of a reason to fight back against the bullshit speculation proclaiming his "non-criminality". And Paulson has plenty of friends to defend him, I'm sure. You must find your self busy delivering temperance to those of us who express necessary and appropriate moral outrage.

To the centrists I wonder, after torture, wiretapping, wall street bailout, more war - just when, when oh fucking when, is the right time for the expression of anger and rage at a government and mainstream political process that continues reward the rich and punish the non-rich? Never. Because with anger and passion we will never have change. Instead will have change in the form of a fucking insurance benevolence act of 2010.

Yes - we are pissed and angry. Get used to it. And save your sparky shit for a dog. I am not a dog.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. Easy Sparky

I'm not a centrist.

Your rant "withstands," I'm sure. Since you don't want to have a discussion, but simply vent your "moral outrage," I'll leave you to your blabbering.

[scentopine]

51. Actually, I won't be baited by you and your bullshit. You are insulting. -nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. LOL. Nice edit

One can be a leftist, and still realize that institutional action requires working through existing mechanisms. For you, being a leftist means ranting and venting moral outrage, while getting nothing done.

I'm a leftist, and I have been all my adult life. I don't use phony words like "progressive." I'm a leftist. Here's a lesson you should learn: being a leftists doesn't mean carrying on in an ignorant manner and not knowing shit about anything, so long as you have your moral outrage to keep you warm. It keeps YOU warm, but nobody else. Indeed, it doesn't do anything but keep YOU warm.

[scentopine]

55. ok- you have called me sparky, ignorant, not knowing shit, and

you are the worse for it. You personalized this. That makes me a bigger person than you. I'm just waiting for you channel your inner Emanuel and call me a retard. You represent everything that drives energy, money and change out of the democratic party and this is why even when the right wing loses they still win - as you institutional soldiers attack people with energy, money and skills, you keep the mainstream parties safe by delivering temperance. The democratic party moves farther and farther to the right and today's "leftist" is more and more like yesterdays neo-con. I was quite active in the democratic party - money and labor. No more.

From the civil war, to labor reform, to women's vote, to civil rights, raw seething anger was behind the injustice. I was around then (civil rights and vietnam) and shared that anger. And I feel it again, now. Yeah - go on and lecture me and insult me on my outrage at this massive injustice. My remarks and criticisms are lucid and rational. Your insults are incoherent and steeped in amateur thermodynamic theory.

[alcibiades_mystery]

56. Man O Man

You call me a centrist and rant about nonsenses, then accuse me of namecalling. What a joke.

The only amateurish thing going on here is your complete avoidance of dealing with the substance of the case. That's it.

So, since you're on "rational and lucid" now, explain to me what you would like to see happen, then show me a route to get there, with real mechanisms that exist. Hell, I'll even let you make up a few.

[jmowreader]

47. These securities should have been restricted to accredited investors

I'm thinking out loud here, but Goldman Sachs probably has far lower transaction fees than a hedge fund...

The real problem isn't Paulson. It's not Goldman Sachs. It's the previous administration (and the Republican Party in general) thinking The Market has anything but its own interests in mind when it does anything. Mark my words: there are probably people in the Republican Party who think we could fix every single thing that ails America if we only lifted all restrictions on margin trading. (Democrats remember that unrestricted margin trading was one of the major causes of the Great Depression.)

If President Obama really wants to make the Repiggies squeal, he should repeal the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

[Igel]

54. Barring evidence of other things that we don't know,

we don't have evidence for this, either:

"Paulson selected the RMBS that would make up the reference portfolio precisely because they believed those bonds would lose value (because their underlying collateral would become worthless), and took out insurance on the synthetic CDO (specifically, a credit default swap contract); this was a pile of shit in search of a counterparty - and Goldman knew this."

The bits in bold *seem* likely. But since they were busy buying precisely the kinds of things that Paulson was betting would go belly up at the time they were structuring his derivative it seems a difficult call. If you think that these things are toxic, why buy and hold them? The easy out is that Paulson thought they'd go belly up, but at the time GS didn't. In other words, "they" didn't believe those bonds would lose value.

GS took out insurance on them later. The problem is that if this chronology--not mine, by the way, so take this as the contingency that it is and not an assertion of fact--is right, then the case will fall apart. It means GS assembled the portfolio based on Paulson's beliefs, not their own, and GS sold them before GS as a whole concluded the market was about to go belly up; and since it wasn't their selection, it was an "independent" manager's selection. (Although I've since heard the language expanded to "independent, objective" manager, although I have no idea how to interpret "objective" in this context; presumably the assumption is that Paulson isn't objective, but I'm not sure if that says something about Paulson or simply helps define the word "objective.")

Of course, this allows for Tourre to be a bit of GS that had already concluded what GS overall would later conclude. That would allow the case to be winnable, but much more trivial.

[alcibiades_mystery]

60. GS Execs were knee-deep in taking the other side on these transactions

as of December 2006.

There is no problem with the chronology. They knew.

Besides, in this specific case, with these specific bonds (in the reference portfolio), everyone knew damn well the kind of research Paulson was performing, the criteria they were using to select the RMBS, and the reason why they were making such selections.

See related NY Times story on high-level GS executives involvement in the mortgage area, from tomorrow's paper: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/business/19goldman.html?hp

[scentopine]

38. Paulson appreciation thread! Yes, this proves he's innocent.

This man is simply an American hero and couldn't possibly have taken part in a manipulation of trading markets around the world.

Mr. Paulson, let me be the first to apologize for the misguided leftists on this board who seem to want to connect you with histories greatest financial disaster. You are clearly nothing more than an innocent victim. How could you possibly have known that global economic collapse was being planned?

Excellent work, Mr. Paulson, for your active role in the destruction of finances and ruined lives around the world that made you billions. You saw the opportunity and you jumped on it. You achieved the American dream, an inspiration for our children and proof that ethics and morality are just quaint ideas as outdated as the Geneva Conventions. You saw an opportunity to grab hold of billions of dollars of 401k funds and you did it! You pulled if off! Just trading paper!

You'll have to excuse me, I am tearing up with pride and it's hard to type...

<sniff>

God bless you Mr. Paulson and God Speed! And when the chips are down, you can count on me for a legal defense and safe harbor here at DU.

[JackRiddler]

45. Spectacular - nothing's preventing him from testifying against his bankster friends.

Might as well see Goldman Sachs off to the guillotine, for a start.