Dodd: I'm to Blame for Bonus Loophole

[kpete]

Source: Daily Beast

Dodd: I'm to Blame for Bonus Loophole

In a reversal, Senator Chris Dodd said this evening he was responsible for the language added into the stimulus bill that allowed for the AIG bonuses. The Senate Banking Committee chairman and a Treasury Department official told CNN the Obama administration pushed for the language—which ensures that already existing contracts for bonuses at bailed out companies were honored—because they were afraid the government would be slapped with lawsuits without it. “The administration had expressed reservations,” said Dodd. “They asked for modifications. The alternative was losing the amendment entirely.” They “seemed like innocent modifications” at the time, he added. “I agreed reluctantly. I was changing the amendment because others were insistent.”

Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/dodd-im-to-blame-for-bonus-loophole/developing/

[blueclown]

1. Dodd needs to resign.

This is a shame. Dodd used to be a great senator. Now he is just another career politician in Washington who games the system and is a liar to boot.

He needs to go. If he doesn't resign, he will be primaried.

[Winterblues]

3. I think you need to get more information on this

Dodd did this at the insistance of the Administration and it was the exact opposite of his first ammendment which required no bonuses be paid. Dodd was suckered into it.

[LakeSamish706]

7. Yep, I agree with you... I think he did it at the request of President Obama....

[atreides1]

20. Yes, that makes it all better!!!

What ever happened to courage, now we find out that the administration was afraid of lawsuits, yes indeed that's real gutsy.

What else is the administration afraid of, I'd like to know. That way we can all write and tell President Obama that courage in the face of adversity is one of the reasons some voted for him.

[Egnever]

44. Um the legislation was passed under bush was it not?

[No Elephants]

63. So Dodd did it at the request of President Elect Obama.

[Norquist Nemesis]

55. Really? Where did any report show the administration

was afraid of lawsuits? If anything, there was a lawyer from Treasury (who is not Sec T or POTUS) that brought up a point about lawsuits. Perhaps the lawyer looked sternly into a staffer's eyes and told him he needed to take make the change to save America!

But, then again, I'm just speculating...just like you! You don't know all of the facts of who, what, etc. None of us do at this point.

But go ahead and start shooting all half-cocked. Jeesh!

[No Elephants]

65. Can you think of a plausible reason why Dodd put in language forbidding

bonuses, then deleted that and put in language requiring AIG to honor its contracts?

[Donnachaidh]

14. suckered? After ALL the money AIG gave his campaign?

You have GOT to be kidding me. NOT possible. He probably fell all over his desk trying to get the loophole done.

Check opensecrets.org for the full skinny on just how BEHOLDEN Dodd is to AIG.

[roguevalley]

54. he gave the pugs a club to beat us with. he should resign. god, I am so tired of this.

geithner and dodd should go. obama is on the trail trying to keep the plates spinning because of this. it sucks.

[No Elephants]

78. Do you know for certain that Dodd is wrong? Even if he is, do you really think

he is any worse, over his career, than other Senators are, especially the Pubs?

I am sick of Democrats worrying about Pubs say. Do you think they give a good God damn about what Democrats say?

Worrying about what they say is a 100% losing game, anyway. They'll say as much crap when they have no justification whatever as they''ll say when they are semi-justified--and semi-justified is their peak. My advice is base absolutely nothing on what Republicans are likely to say. Just get your p.r. ducks in a row and sell your case to the public.

Also, before saying Dodd should resign, check who gets to appoint his replacement under Connecticut law and then check whether that entity or official is Democrat or Republican.

Even ASSUMING Dodd was incorrect about lawsuits, that error cannot be so bad as handing a Senate seat over to the Pubs giftwrapped.

I am not putting Party above morality. I think Dodd is a relatively upright guy who MAY or may not have made a good faith error in this instance. At worst, primary him.

(And when I say "relatively," I mean in comparison with other Senators, not in comparison with nonexistent perfect people. For that matter, I'd much rather have Dodd in that seat than infallible Pope Ratzinger.)

[Donnachaidh]

104. you know, you ARE thinking of Party before country

DODD has the highest amount of contributions from AIG. That's FACT. And we are in a bad situation now because HE put a loophole in this program, that effectively COVERS his best contributor. his best CORPORATE contributor. And I'll bet he jumped through hoops when Paulson decided to give his best contributor a bailout too. And it is so convenient -- that banking committee post he has. Able to aid and abet all those corporations that contributed to his campaigns in the past.

He SHOULD step down. I really don't care who or what has to be done to replace him -- he got caught with his pants down politically -- he's GONE.

Or does that rule only apply to republicans to you?

We have far too many Democrats who are willing to cover for corrupt Democrats -- that is NOT change. Unless the change is the color of the party.

A Corporate shill is a corporate shill. And Dodd is one of the biggest. He needs to Go NOW.

[No Elephants]

106. Except that Dodd was the one who put the no bonus" language in the bill to begin with. That does

not square with your theory.

I am NOT thinking of Party before country; I am not a liar and there is no need to go ad hominem.

If you can guaranty me that the appointee of the Governor of Connecticut is going to be superior to Dodd, or that Dodd is inferior to his fellow Senators, you MIGHT have a point about me, but you can't and you don't.

Moreover, I've been thinking seriously of changing my Party registration to Green, so there goes your theory on another ground.

[paulk]

112. since Obama was the 2nd highest recipient of AIG contributions

do you think he should resign also?

And does that make Obama a corporate shill?

[razorman]

115. I agree. If we excuse our own corrupt officials, we cannot expect to be taken seriously

when we complain about Republican outrages.

[Winterblues]

116. You do know it is illegal for any Corporation to contribute to a campaign don't you?

I would imagine there are individuals in AIG that contributed to Dodd as they live in his state but I am sure there are individuals that contributed to his opponent as well.

[roguevalley]

117. It blows my mind that if someone is wrong, admitting it probably from his own

clarifying statements and people comment on it you have to throw up all kinds of crap including the most sad statement of all: do you really think he's worse than any other one?

You really need to reread your comment and relax. People can be wrong and if its bad enough, they need to face the music. Honest to god.

[No Elephants]

66. That doesn't wash. When Dodd altered the language in the bill,

AIG's old management and ownership was history, AIG was about to be 80% owned by the U.S. taxpayer and was not about to making campaign contributions.

Senators don't change bill language out of gratitude for past campaign contributions. They do it to keep the money coming. When Dodd changed the bill language, future campaign contributions from AIG were clearly not a possibility. Therefore Dodd had no reason to benefit AIG. He did have reason to work with the incoming President and Democratic party head, though.

[Zodiak]

30. I saw that

They said that treasury officials from the administration were worried about lawsuits.

So this also points back to Geitner and Summers before Obama.

But ultimately, the buck stops with the President. I think that President Obama would be served best to get rid of these two and start over. Clearly none of the parties involved are up to the job of reversing course from going over a cliff....and the more we delay, the worse it will be.

No more corporatists...the fox cannot watch the hen-house.

[Freddie Stubbs]

97. I don't think that he needs to resign, but he may want to consider retirement when his term expires

His poll numbers were already abysmal due to the Countrywide scandal.

[Marrah_G]

98. If he did what the administration asked, if they DID ask him to do this....

Then I think I am done with working for any more campaigns.

Lies, Deciept..... Washington taints everyone that goes near it.

Same shit different day.

Nothing has changed, the names.

[Ian David]

2. Was he stupid, or was he bought-off? n/t

[customerserviceguy]

5. According to him, neither

He's claiming he was pressured by the Obama Administration.

Definitely trying to save his own ass at the expense of the President. It's no wonder that he only got about 1% of the vote in Iowa.

[blm]

15. He was told to do it by same Clintonites in Obama admin. who protected Bush1. Quayle, Snow

and other fascist Bush cronies should be the story of AIG (and Cerberus and GM), yet it's set up for some peripheral Dems to take the fall.

Obama made a HUGE error in judgement by letting certain Clintonites back into power - they were always part of the fascist agenda and he is learning this the hard way.

[Marie26]

38. Oh, it's all the Clintonites

When are you all going to see that *Obama* is totally beholden to AIG & Wall Street?

[chimpymustgo]

59. Thank you, Marie. This buck-passing borders on insanity.

[No Elephants]

68. Yep. Obama appointed the Clintonites and is in charge of them. Both things are true.

Obama is responsible and so are the Clintonites now working for him.

[blm]

108. I don't absolve Obama at ALL. He made a huge mistake believing hyped up 'competence' of Clintonites.

THAT is where his inexperience in DC shows, no matter his political abilities.

[blm]

109. If you think Obama hasn't been relying on Clintonites like Rubin and Summers

when making these decisions, then share with us who is advising Obama on economic matters.

Obama IS at fault for making a dumb decision to allow these fascist sympathizers back into power after the last 8yrs of full on fascism.

[Marie26]

111. See below

Especially the last linked article. It's actually worse than relying on "Clintonites" - Obama is relying on Univ. of Chicago free-market advisors that *he* himself selected for his economic team. Although there's some former Clinton officials there, the people that Obama himself has brought into the government are basically Friedmanites, many of whom worked in the academic world advocating free-market policies. Many of these guys are actually even more pro-market & neoliberal than the Clinton team was. If Obama wanted new blood, he could've selected liberal or progressive advisors from the academic world, but instead chose pro-Wall St. advisors (or "fascist sympathizers," as you might say.) Heck, he even chose a Wall St., banker-beholden running mate (Biden). That's the problem. It's a consistent pattern, & consistent choices by Obama that reflect a consistent philosophy. It's just not one that most liberals would agree with.

[paulk]

113. it's fascinating, isn't it?

it used to be the Republicans that blamed everything on Clinton.

[No Elephants]

67. At this stage, being beholden to AIG means nothing. Please see Post 66.

[blm]

107. Obama gave IN to the Clintonites believing they had a unique handle on economic policy, just like

most Americans were led to believe.

Marie, if you believe Treasury Dept. people who were involved in Clinton administration are NOT the ones advising Obama to protect the fascists running AIG then tell me who is.

[Marie26]

110. *Obama's* economic team

Some of which are former Clinton officials (Summers) & some of which are his own economic team from the presidential campaign (Goolsbee, Geithner). ALL of which are pro-free market, pro-privatization, anti-progressive. Obama has appointed these people for a reason - they represent his economic views. And, what's more, IMO they represent the financial interests that helped to elect Obama. I think you're deluding yourself if you believe Obama "gave in" to people who do not represent his beliefs & governing philosophy. He *agrees* with Geithner & Summers & their economic approach. In many ways, Obama's team is *more* free-market & neoliberal than even Bill Clinton's team was. Obama's never really tried to hide this - he's had a "free-market" (pro-Wall Street) team since the campaign, he's advocated many neoliberal economic policies (charter schools, private insurance, etc.), AND he received heavy financial support from the hedge funds & Wall Street entities. So it's hard for me to believe that Obama's some babe in the woods led astray by evil Clintonites. For better or worse, this is Obama's policy. Who's advising Obama to protect AIG? IMO (and in my opinion only), AIG is calling in some chips & asking the Admin. (via the Treasury, or Obama himself) for some favors as a reward for their past financial support. There's a lot of financial shadiness here, which is why everyone's trying to pass the buck now.

See, e.g. -

"How Barack Obama Struck Fundraising Gold" - http://nymag.com/news/politics/30634/

"Obama the Hedge Fund Candidate" - http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/obama_the_hedge_fund_candidate.html

"Obama and the Hedge Fund Factor" -
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/obama-and-the-hedge-fund-factor/

"Hedge fund managers throw weight behind Obama" -
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1136083920080711

"Obama's Chicago Boys"

Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the race to declare, on CNBC, "Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/06/obamas-chicago-boys

Etc.

[blm]

114. Beholden for dollars, no. Stuck protecting bigwigs from the last 30yrs - yes.

This scandal should be all about the last 30 years and the principal players like Bush1, Clinton, Quayle and Snow and other BFEE cronies. Because the people involved are TOO powerful to focua on and Obama has rolled over for them on this, and why so many Clintonites ARE still part of the mix.

Democrats need to hold Clinton and his players accountable for their participation in deregulation frenzy of the last few decades.

Democrats need to stop using the Clinton years as a positive example and expose them, instead, as the same bubble economics that didn't hurt the rest of us as much as recent years. If we don't, then what will really change?

[Marie26]

118. IMO it's a little of both

I actually consider the Clinton years positive in a lot of ways & I'm a raving socialist. Obama's got to work w/what he's got to a certain extent & the Clinton Ad. officials are the only ones w/executive experience in a Democratic presidential administration. Where else can you look? Carterites? My point is that even when Obama didn't choose a "Clintonite", he chose a free-market neoliberal. There's no raving socialists/progressives in the Obama Adm. If you're looking for *systemic* change in the way the country works IMO that's a bit much to expect of any Democratic president. Small changes, sure. But they've all got to dance w/the ones that brought them & that's true of the Congressional Dems as well. IMO the first change should be to public financing of campaigns & then we'd have politicians less beholden to the corporate status quo.

[blm]

120. Obama needed to tap the progressive wonks on the economy who were proved RIGHT in their warnings

about deregulation. Tapping Clinton people for their role in the economic policies of the 90s is not much different than tapping Bush's team with the biggest difference being the lack of a 7yr bubble that Clinton had.

The progressive wonks should never have been shut out in favor of the deregulationcrazies of the last 20 years. Rewarding the FAILED thinkers and shutting out those who were PROVED RIGHT is just plain wrong - and I say that as a longtime supporter of Obama's candidacy. Obama believed the hype about the so-called 'competence' of the Clintonites. I think that's his weakest leg.

[Marie26]

121. We don't disagree

except in your contention that Obama was somehow fooled into appointing non-progessive people. Or that this is somehow Clinton's fault. Obama's appointed non-progressive people because he's not a progressive. He didn't just appoint Clinton people, Obama reached out to appoint many "wonks" from outside government. The thing is, when he did that, he ALWAYS chose to appoint a center-right, neoliberal economist. He had the opportunity to choose a progressive wonk, and didn't.

[blm]

122. He chose to believe the HYPE - he is at fault there - it's a weakness. Clinton is faulted for what

his enormous role in pushing the deregulation on to our party and supporting most those congressional candidates who sided with his view. That these centrists are a huge chunk of the powerstructure in our party is Clinton's doing.

[Laelth]

4. He's falling on his sword?

I can hardly believe this. Strange.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

10. A politician taking responsibility for his actions?

Part of me wants to kick his ass, and the other part of me wants to buy him a drink.

[Igel]

31. No part of me does.

It's simple. No administration official, even Obama himself, has the authority to change the language in a bill, whether when it's offered for a vote on the floor of the House or Senate or in conference committee. There's no mechanism in place for them to do it constitutionally or legally (or unconstitutionally or illegally, for that matter).

The most they can do is apply pressure. Yet most people were running around saying that the *administration* changed the language, therefore Dodd was innocent of the change. Now, he might have been innocent, but the bit about the administration's having changed the language was a crock.

Is it clear? What people were saying, in order to protect Dodd and other Congressfolk, was that Obama et al. did something that's pretty much impossible, and if done at all would be illegal and unconstitutional, and something that would be a clear and unmistakeable impeachable offense. They didn't realize that's what they were saying, of course.

So it was clear that *some* Congressperson inserted the language, since only one or more of them could do so. If nobody took the fall for it, responsibility would devolve on Reid/Pelosi and the members of the conference committee individually. So Dodd is no more taking responsibility out of a sense of personal honor than he is because it's required for him to be able to continue walking on water and changing water into wine. He ducked reflexively; denial is his first response. Then he realized just as screwed if he didn't take responsibility, but he'd have lots of fellow Congressfolk on their backs getting screwed with him ... resentful and displeased fellow Congressfolk that rank above him in the food chain. This way, the screwing is a solo act that involves neither Reid nor Pelosi, *and* he gets to vaunt his personal integrity.

[chimpymustgo]

60. Dodd DID it, then LIED like a rug. What a creepy coward. Bought and paid for.

[No Elephants]

74. Hold the drink. He had no choice.

[dysfunctional press]

47. while pushing others under the bus at the same time...?

the Senate Banking Committee chairman and a Treasury Department official told CNN the Obama administration pushed for the language..."“I agreed reluctantly. I was changing the amendment because others were insistent.”

[No Elephants]

69. He's not falling on his sword. He is trying to skewer Obama and Obama's peeps with it. Dodd

cannot keep his role in changing the language hidden. He was dumb to try. So, hethrew Obama and his peeps under the bus, while "coming clean," probably about 45 and a half seconds before the press outed his role in the language change.

[nc4bo]

6. tsk-tsk. There's more to this I'm sure. nt

[Divine Discontent]

57. I want one of these...

[amandabeech]

71. Great pic! I think that he'd look better if the hat were in Navy

to match his tie. That gray really doesn't do much for him. Not everyone can wear gray, you know.

[nc4bo]

100. LOL - nice hat! Heck, I'd wear one if my head weren't so big. nt

[No Elephants]

75. Are you sure you have reasonable reason to be sure?

[nc4bo]

102. Does "my Spidey sense is tingling" reasonable enough?

Cause gosh darn it, that Spidey sense thing was going off nearly non stop during the previous Admin - almost burned it out.

What aren't they really telling us about AIG and the rest of the financial meltdown?

Don't you get the distinct feeling someone's trying to keep the lid on tight even though the stuff manages to ooze out from under the lid and run all over the top of the stove?

Naw, no reasonable reason.

[Egalitariat]

8. It doesn't matter if they had well written contracts

Short of an AIG bankruptcy, the bonuses would have been paid out regardless of any legislation.

If AIG balked because of some populist political grandstanding, any of the recipients would have sued and easily won in court. And on top of the bonuses, AIG would have also had to pay their own attorney fees as well as the attorney fees of the people whose contracts they would have breached.

This whole furor is founded on ignorance.

I'm ready to move on.

[rpannier]

26. Actually that's not entirely true that they would have won

It's not even a given it would have gone to trial.
But in a jury trial, it is not a given they would have won.
With the mood of the public at this point, there is a likely chance that they wouldn't be able to find even a simple majority that would have voted in their favor.

In addition, to go to trial they would have had to make their names public. Most, if not all, of these people are trying to stay anonymous for fear of public harassment or more.

Another point, these bonuses, according to those involved are 'retention bonuses'.
Retention bonuses are paid when you stay. Many of these people did not stay, so I'm not sure how they are entitled to any money.

Final point, according to several sources, some of these people have threatened to use their knowledge pf AIG to further damage the company if they don't get their bonuses.
If these stories are true, then that constitutes a crime.

[Egalitariat]

40. I think most of your post is wrong

1. Nearly all employment contracts call for non-jury trial (decided by a judge) or arbitration. These venues are generally always decided on the merits w/o regard to sentiment.

2. You're probably right that a few of the lower level folks would have avoided having their names named. But I guarantee you the folks who would have been stiffed huge amounts of money ($100K+) would have sued, and that represents the lion's share of the total sum.

3. Your third point about whether the retention clauses were honored by the employees seems moot to me. If the employee hadn't held up their end of the deal, I don't see how the Dodd amendment would affect that. And I can't believe that any employees who actually breached their contract are going to get paid, anyways. They may not currently be at AIG, but if their contract doesn't require that for them to get paid, then it doesn't matter.

4. You're probably right if that is true. They could be criminally prosecuted. But they'd still be owed their bonuses if they held up their end of the bargain.

I'm hoping that "A deal is a deal" will always be the law of the land here. No matter which way the political winds blow.

[No Elephants]

76. Since none of us has seen a copy of the bonus agreements, what they say is

pure speculation. I don't know how you can claim another poster is wrong based upon your imagining what a contract says.

If the bonuses were retention bonuses, they should have provided that they would be paid only if the employee was still employed when the time came to pay the bonus.

A deal is a deal, even when a company is so insolvent that it forgot what solvency looks like, has never been the law of the land. There is the law of executory contracts and fraudulent conveyances. The latter is probably a lot older than the land, at least when "the land" is used to mean the United States of America. Further, even absent insolvency, contracts can be attacked on a variety of grounds. None of us knows whether that would have been possible in this case.

I think it a lot likelier that these execs would have settled for less than 100%, rather than leave this up to an arbitrator, a judge or a jury at the present time.

[amandabeech]

83. Yes, I think settlement, too.

Once Obama has made political hay, that is. The bonuses are the symbol of the mess, and symbols often count. That's what I think Treasury missed.

[Egnever]

45. Well said

I am really quite shocked on how easily people are manipulated by this story.

[Dappleganger]

9. I agree and Geithner needs to join him.

It's time for people to accept responsibility and the democrats should lead the way and show rethugs how its done.

This is no time to screw around.

[pleah]

11. Dodd, "I agreed reluctantly. I was changing the

amendment because other were insistent."

Who are the others? What kind of insistence were the "others" using?

[Atman]

12. Dodd AND "a Treasury Department Official" blamed it on the Obama administration?

Really? And we're calling for Dodd's head WHY, exactly? It sounds as if he's trying to take a bullet for the president as well as blaming it on him. The fact that the story doesn't give name to the "Treasury Department Official" gives me more concern. This story sounds a bit fucked up.

.

[johnnyrocket]

13. Yea, figured as much. Dodd is part of the problem, not the solution.

[spin]

18. I"m beginning to believe that most politicians are the problem...

We elect them, but they don't represent us.

This goes for both political parties.

[Zanie]

51. Dodd did not say "I am to blame". The headline is wrong

Dodd did not talk to the Daily Beast. He spoke to CNN, and did not take "blame".

[No Elephants]

80. Thank you, Zanie! Hard to break into a ranting mob with facts, isn't it? Welcome to DU.

[question everything]

16. See earlier report

where he denied it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5279980

[jordi_fanclub]

17. Dodd?!?!... where is WALDO?...

Geithner approved the AIG bonuses
Geithner forced his boss (Obama) to step in and overrule him (recoup the bonuses)
Geithner arranged the AIG bailout that has since ballooned to $170 billion
Geithner participated in the decision to hide the AIG counterparty bailouts
Geithner still has no coherent plan to fix the banking crisis
Geithner still thinks the problem is "liquidity," not solvency
Geithner has persuaded no one that he's the right man for the job

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-tim-geithner-deathwatch-2009-3

[Doctor_J]

19. THe way the loony right has been calling for the death penalty over this,

that somehow the Dems were going to take the blame. I would be shocked if Krauthammer would be bitching if it was something the Repukes did.

[TacticalPeek]

21. So Dodd kinda lied?

He lied trying to protect either Geithner or Summers as far as I can guess, based on Hamsher, Greenwald etc.

That's fucked. Getting caught in a lie is bad enough, but to do it in service to those so undeserving is just sad.

AAaaarrrrgggghhhh!

[Zanie]

52. The Daily Beast is lying. He did not say "I am to blame"

Dodd did not talk to the Daily Beast. He spoke to CNN, and did not take "blame".

[marshall]

22. Dodd is taking one for the team, lord love him

I just hope his blood is enough for the damned sharks.

[cali]

24. what nonsense.

got any evidence for that? And it's highly unlikely that someone in Doddn's position would sacrifice himself for the admin.

[Laelth]

34. That's exactly what it appears he did. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[davidinalameda]

46. no one has any evidence of anything

freaking idiots

:hi:

I wonder how many posters in this thread have left their bridges unattended

[Jefferson23]

25. Exactly.

[Marie26]

37. It was a nice try

But the truth is coming out anyway: "Administration sought bonus limit revision" -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090319/ap_on_go_co/aig_bonus_congress_2

[Jefferson23]

23. The reluctant:

Treasury Attempts to “Blame Dodd” for AIG Bonuses
By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday March 17, 2009 1:15 pm


As Geithner tries to get out of the way of the AIG bonus train wreck, it looks like the designated sin eater is going to be Chris Dodd:

The administration official said the Treasury Department did its own legal analysis and concluded that those contracts could not be broken. The official noted that even a provision recently pushed through Congress by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, had an exemption for such bonus agreements already in place.

So Treasury says Chris Dodd did this? In a word. . . no.


http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/17/treasury-attempts-to-...

[tomm2thumbs]

27. THAT'S ALL FOLKS!!!!

[Zanie]

50. Dodd did not say he is to blame. Headline is a lie

Dodd did not speak to the "Daily Beast". He spoke to CNN and did not say that.

[Jefferson23]

89. If you had read it, you would know that is not what the point of the

article is about. Greenwald is defending Dodd.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Fear of litigation. Oldest trick in the book.

These people fear nothing. They OWN the Bar Associations.

[OwnedByFerrets]

29. Shit, that blows half of Thom Hartmanns show all to hell. He spent almost

an hour defending Dodd.....with good reason. Now Dodd goes and makes this statement. Go figure.:eyes:

[NorCalDem]

32. I've said it once, and i'll say it again...

Geithner and Summers need to GO!!

[fascisthunter]

33. he's taking the hit...

not that he shouldn't resign, but I don't think he's the only one who deserves accountability of some kind. Time to clean house and not allow loyalty to fog judgment... that's what I say. Our most biggest crisis is our government itself... anything and everything our politicians do, will depend on what every citizen does or doesn't do. Voting truly isn't the only aspect to a democracy, it's your duties as citizens to care and make sure those in power do as you expect. To apply pressure onto politicians is being an American FIRST. Don't allow people to accuse you into submission from speaking your mind about your political party and your government. NEVER. When you do, you give up your citizenship, your rights and allow corruption to fester and multiply. Let them accuse you... they'll see and understand. That's REAL CHANGE.

[Gin]

35. he was asked on camera if he did it and he said "NO"....so...since he lied on camera

he had to come clean or be exposed. (IMO)

[Mr. Hyde]

36. Translation: Fuck you America, what are you gonna do about it"?

[No Elephants]

79. Mr. Hyde, that is the Puke position on everything Dems do. And, from your posts, I would

say that is also your position on everything Dems do.

BTW, where does Dr. Jekyll, your less evil and less "hide-y" alter ego post?

[Mr. Hyde]

84. ............

What is this, the 3rd time you've accused me of being a troll and asked me that stupid question? Give it up why don't you. I supported Hillary over Obama because I knew he would be a disaster and he isn't doing anything to prove me wrong. As a tax payer, I am absolutely livid over the money being handed out to people who neither earned nor deserved it. He has yet to impress me in any way. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

[No Elephants]

101. Nah. Lots of people here are critical of Obama, including me. And lots of people

here supported Hillary in the primary and are now critical of Obama. You don't see me questioning them. So, none of those things are the reason that I point out that your posts are consistently RW.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

39. by bye you asshole...okay Conn you have double the work now....replace two senators

[Zanie]

53. The headline is false

Dodd did not talk to the Daily Beast. He spoke to CNN, and did not take "blame".

[unkachuck]

41. don't feel bad, Dodge....

....we feel your pain; after all, this is America....to think only a million dollars worth of AIG campaign contributions could buy AIG 183 billion dollars (and counting) worth of our current and future tax dollars is quite understandable....we wouldn't have it any other way....

[Vehl]

42. saw this on cnn..

regardless of whatever explanations he gave today; he should not have brazenly lied on camera yesterday.

the republicans might take advantage of this :(

[Jefferson23]

43. Several updates from Greenwald on Dodd: 4 in all.

UPDATE: Just in case the point wasn't yet crystal clear, here is a Think Progress report from February 15, 2009, reporting on the White House/Dodd dispute over the executive compensation provisions. Is there any doubt which party was the one demanding weaker and narrower executive compensation limits? (hint: it wasn't Dodd):

Having the White House blame Dodd (rather than itself) for this exemption is such a gross offense to the truth.



UPDATE II: Rather oddly, the NYT article I quoted above, by David Herzsenhorn, has been moved on the NYT site and is now at this link (see here). Most importantly, it has been re-written to reflect that fact that it was not Dodd who inserted the exception for past contracts:

But Mr. Reid mostly ducked a question about whether Democrats had missed an opportunity to prevent the bonuses because of a clause in the stimulus bill, that imposed limits on executive compensation and bonuses but made an exception for pre-existing employment contracts.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, who initially proposed adding executive compensation and bonus limits to the stimulus bill, did not include the exception.

In the place of the Herzsenorn article is now this article by Jackie Calmes and Louise Story that also includes the Dodd version of events:

Mr. Geithner reiterated the Treasury position of that lawyers inside and out of government had agreed that “it would be legally difficult to prevent these contractually mandated payments.”

That position was being questioned at the Capitol. Congressional Republicans, eager to implicate Democrats, initially blamed Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the banking committee, for adding to the economic recovery package an amendment that cracked down on bonuses at companies getting bailout money, but that exempted bonuses protected by contracts, like A.I.G.’s.

Mr. Dodd, in turn, responded Tuesday with a statement saying that the exemption actually had been inserted at the insistence of Treasury during Congress’s final legislative negotiations.

Something in the last couple of hours caused The New York Times to change the way it is reporting this matter so that it is no longer mindlessly reciting the false White House attempt to blame Dodd for the bonus exemption, but instead is at least including a version of the truth.



UPDATE III: I'm receiving email regarding the remarks Dodd made today on CNN in which he stated that, at the White House's insistence and over his objections, he agreed to include the pre-February, 2009 carve-out in the stimulus bill. Some of these emailers have suggested that Dodd's comments are at odds with what I wrote. They quite plainly are not.

The narrative I wrote here (and which Hamsher wrote in her post) both included exactly that sequence:

That was the exact provision that Geithner and Summers demanded and that Dodd opposed. And even after Dodd finally gave in to Treasury's demands, he continued to support an amendment from Ron Wyden and Olympia Snowe to impose fines on bailout-receiving companies which paid executive bonuses."

I explicitly wrote that it was Dodd who, after arguing vehemently against this provision, ultimately agreed to its inclusion. And the statement from Dodd's office that I quoted above included the same series of events ("Because of negotiations with the Treasury Department and the bill Conferees, several modifications were made, including adding the exemption"). That's exactly what Dodd said today on CNN.

The point was -- and is -- that Dodd was pressured to put that carve-out in at the insistence of Treasury officials (whose opposition meant that Dodd's choices were the limited compensation restriction favored by Geithner/Summers or no limits at all), and Dodd did so only after arguing in public against it. To blame Dodd for provisions that the White House demanded is dishonest in the extreme, and what Dodd said today on CNN about the White House's advocacy of this provision confirms, not contradicts, what I wrote.



UPDATE IV: From the CNN article on the Dodd interview:

Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.

Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face numerous lawsuits without the new language. . . .

I agreed reluctantly," Dodd said. "I was changing the amendment because others were insistent."

It was the Treasury Department -- at least according to a Treasury official granted anonymity for the extremely compelling reason that he "asked not to be named" -- that pushed for the crave-out over Dodd's objections. That was the point from the beginning. That's precisely what made it so outrageous that the administration was trying to blame Dodd for a provision which Obama's own Treasury officials advocated, pushed for and engineered. Anyone who doubts Dodd's opposition should just go read the above-excerpted articles which reported, in real time, about the dispute he was having with White House over the scope of the compensation limits.

-- Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/index.html#postid-updateA3

[Zanie]

49. Dodd did not say "I am to blame" Dodd did not speak to the "Daily Beast"

He spoke to CNN, in which the Daily Beast (whatever that is) based its story.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. If they were innocent modifications why was he reluctant?

[amandabeech]

56. He did not want to see any bonuses go to any empoyee of any company receiving

bailout money. He did not want an exception for bonuses called for in existing contracts.

Treasury wanted to exclude bonuses arising from existing contracts, at least in part because Treasury lawyers and outside lawyers hired by Treasury thought that the law could not be enforced against existing contracts.

I'm sort of a lawyer and I understand the lawyer points. However, lawyers often don't understand that considerations outside the law are often of equal or greater importance to it.

In this case, I think that government lawyers fighting it out with some AIG execs over the bonuses would be worth a lot to Obama politically, and would help Obama get those execs to cough up at least a part of the bonuses as a settlement. That would be a political victory for Obama. If the matter actually went to arbitration or trial, who knows who would have won? Lawyers have been wrong before.

This was bad politics on the part of Treasury, and it made a bad situation worse.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. Treasury wasn't at the joint session when it was changed.

At least that's what Chris Matthews just said.

David

[amandabeech]

61. Treasury had been on the phone with the staffers working on the conference bill.

Or maybe they were young and did it all by e-mail. They didn't have to be in the room.

Everyone working for the conference committee assumed that the folks from Treasury, and it may have been Geithner himself together with Summers from the President's economic advisor council, were speaking for the administration, aka Obama. So somebody put in the language that Treasury wanted.

You notice that whoever actually put this thing in isn't speaking. Dodd didn't actually put it in--he wasn't on the conference committee and wasn't actually there although I'm sure he knows who physically did it as requested by Treasury. Today on Tweety, Bob Shrum said that he thought he knew who it was. I haven't seen anyone spill those beans, yet.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. Whoever put it in needs to step up, saying staffers did it isn't going to cut it.

Why would they call those guys to the hill and grill them when they authorized it? Maybe they'll read the bill next time.

David

[amandabeech]

70. I'm not sure of the meaning of your writing in the text of your message.

Would you run that past me again, please? I'm mixed up on who "they" and "those guys" are in your first sentence.

I agree. More of these folks need to read bills, or assign good, experienced staff to help, not the lower level folk.

Maybe congresscritters who trust each other could divide up the long bills among themselves.

With the sheer size of some of these bills, I think that the rules should be changed to give the critters a longer period of time to read and digest the bills, perhaps based on length. Forty-eight hours just isn't enough.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. Sorry.

Why would they call AIG execs to the hill and grill them?


David

[amandabeech]

73. Congresscritters want to look good for the voters.

Some may be using the appearance as a chance to bully the execs into giving back the bonuses now that no lawsuits will be forthcoming.

Some may be genuinely as pissed as their constituents.

Thanks for the clarification!

[No Elephants]

62. As I read this, Obama and his crew got Dodd to put this language into the

legislation, probably already knowing about the bonus contracts. When it hit the fan, Obama and his crew let Dodd take the fall and Dodd lied at first (really silly), then threw Obama and his crew under the bus.

No one comes off smelling like a rose. However, I have a strong feeling that Republicans would have closed ranks and protected each other.

[amandabeech]

77. Republicans can do the lockstep thing better than Democrats.

Will Rodgers remarked once that he belonged to no organized political party because he was a Democrat. This was the 1930s.

We really should take a lesson from the Republicans, and I include myself in that, but I just can't shut up when I see one of our own doing something that I cannot agree with.

Also, Dodd is up for re-election in 2010 and Obama isn't.

[No Elephants]

82. Pls. see posts 49 and 81. Are you sure someone did something "wrong?" Something is not

morally or legally wrong bc Du'ers disagree with it.

I'm guessing at least 60% of posters here don't fully understand AIG's business or the bailout, let alone what the legal obligations were under bonus agreements; and that is a very conservative percentage. Even less really understand the law of contracts, even though everyone on this board fancies himself or herself an expert on all legal matters. (Wonder why lawyers bother with 3 years of law school and about ten years as associates in law firms before they work unsupervised by a partner?)

IMO, this is another hatchet job by a very lazy media and I think everyone here should take a breath before demanding Dodd's resignation, especially while a Republican is Governor of Connecticut, with power to appoint Dodd's replacement and the other Senator from Connecticut is LIEberman. We post here daily about Coleman and Franken, yet we can't seem to wait to hand this seat over on a knee jerk reaction.

On edit: I tried to edit my prior post to say that I had thought better of blaming either Dodd or Obama and to refer everyone to posts 49 and 81, but the time for editing had passed.

[Mr. Hyde]

85. Would AIG execs have received bonuses if AIG had received no tax dollars?

[amandabeech]

87. AIG would probably be in Chapter 11 or 7 by now,

and would have been if it didn't get the first bailout.

The bankruptcy judge would have to sort it out. Even if the bonuses had been paid before the filing, the bankruptcy court can look back for what is termed "fraudulent conveyances"--monies paid out to friends so that they can get their money before bankruptcy, for example.

I can't guess the outcome, but the bankruptcy court would certainly look at this very seriously.

[Mr. Hyde]

88. If there was no money available to give them due to their own incompetence there would be no bonuses

that's the bottom line. This is bullshit. The American tax payer was robbed yet again.

[No Elephants]

93. Your beef seems to be with Bush, Paulson and Bernanke.

[Mr. Hyde]

94. your beef seems to be with me.

[No Elephants]

105. If your complaint is about AIG's getting money, your complaint definitely is with Bush, Paulson and

Bernanke. They told us the sky would fall unless the TARP was voted, and with NO strings. And the more I learn about AIG's business, customers and contracts with customers, the more I think that unholy trio may actually have been correct.

The issue for this thread is, was Dodd wrong to try to avoid 50 or so lawsuits at a critical time that the employees probably would have won anyway.

[No Elephants]

96. I thought so, too. However, I've since learned that thousands of contracts

all over the world would have gone into default if the insurer (AIG) had become insolvent. Of course, it was insolvent, but that was not broadcast. Had it filing for bankruptcy with no news of a bailout, we might not have gotten out of the consequences of all those defaults for 20 or more years, if ever. It's hard even to imagine the black hole that would have resulted. And bankruptcy judges don't sort out trillions of dollars of liability in a week. Big bankruptcies take years.

But, the issue is not about the wisdom or necessity of the TARP, but about whether Dodd did something wrong.

[No Elephants]

92. Wrong spot. Sorry.

[amandabeech]

86. I think that you meant to reply to someone else's post. n/t

[No Elephants]

81. The U.S. was about to take over AIG and we were bailing out companies to the

tune of trillions. Would it really have made sense to take the focus off a global economy that was going into a black hole in order to worry about lawsuits from people who wanted their million or their thousand?

The worst Dodd did--maybe-- was panic and "misspeak" briefly. Politicians have done a lot worse every day of the week. But, he's a Democrat, so let's everyone at DEMOCRATIC Undergound dump on him all the crap we can and demand his resignation. After all, we're all perfect and have been so all our lives. So, obviously, our excessive self-rightousness is eminently justified.

[willing dwarf]

90. Article says Obama administration was afraid of lawsuits

That sounds like a fig leaf to me. One can only prosecute the the US govt at the will of the US courts. Government could have made a law to freeze and renegotiate those bonuses. I am disgusted and disillusioned -- so much for change and hope! :argh:

[No Elephants]

91. Not true. You are thinking, I believe, of sovereign immunity. In the U.S., that

is not applicable when the U.S. is being sued for something that it did while engaging in business transactions, as opposed to something the U.S. did as a sovereign nation. Even as to actions taken by the U.S. as a sovereign nation, there are a lot of exceptions, or Gitmo detainees would get thrown out of court. But, we don't have to go that far.

Besides, the bonus folk would be suing AIG, not the U.S. When you sue Chrysler, you are suing the company, not the stockholder. As a practical matter, the suits would be the headache of the U.S., but that does not give rise to sovereign immunity, either.

[willing dwarf]

99. Ok but

Sounds like I'm clueless on sovereign immunity lawsuits etc, but I still am not convinced that lawsuits are the reason that the administration pushed for this wording in the bill.

I have been a strong advocate of giving the administration time, money and space to work this out, but this smells of political quid pro quo. So then comes the question, who owns Obama? Who owns the Senate? The House? Seems like AIG owns the government more than vice versa.

[No Elephants]

103. No, you are not clueless on sovereign immunity. You knew about it. You just did not

know some of the exception. No biggie. Most people don't even know about sovereign immunity.

I don't know why this is being done, but I do think that avoiding 30 or 40 lawsuits at a critical time in history is a possiblity. Either way, this is chump change compared to the bailouts.

You're right: the bigger issue is who owns our public offices. Not only the federal ones, but state and local, too. However, as long as we, as a nation, remain apathetic, nothing will change. Sorry, but the bottom line again is "We have met the enemy and they is us."

Until that changes, all we can do is vote for the lesser of two evils. IMO, Dodd is not as evil as most.

[Jennicut]

119. That is what I thought as well., to avoid lawsuits.

[Marrah_G]

95. Well UGH............

SO sick of this crap in Washington.

Things were supposed to change.

[prayin4rain]

123. Me too.... I feel so disappointed :( n/t