TPM LiveWire

Delay, Delay, Delay: Goldman's Senate Hearing Strategy Seems To Hinge On Wasting Time


Fabrice Tourre

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

The Goldman Sachs executives testifying before a Senate governmental affairs subcommittee Tuesday have dawdled, dodged and diverted their way through a hearing on Goldman's role in the financial crisis.

They asked for questions to be rephrased and clarified. They squinted and paged through thick notebooks, "searching" for emails printouts they were being asked about. They often appeared confused, bewildered.

On its face, it was not a heartening display of intellectual wizardry from these Titans of Finance.

Check out our highlight reel here:

"I cannot help but get the feeling that a strategy of the witnesses is to try to burn through the time of each questioner," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).

As it turns out, this actually may be their official strategy.

Check out this quote from K. Lee Blalack II -- hired by Goldman to prep its execs for today's hearing -- in a 2009 article in The American Lawyer (.pdf).

Blalack says a well-trained witness can minimize exposure by simply running out the clock: "Long, thoughtful pauses followed by rambling nonresponsive answers can easily devour half of a member's allotted questioning time."

According to the magazine piece (titled "Painful Scrutiny"), Blalack guides clients -- many of them large financial firms -- "through the legal minefields of hostile congressional investigations." Particularly tough is the place Goldman execs are testifying today: Levin's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. "Pretty scary investigations" is how one attorney put it. That's the panel "that can really get a client in trouble," Seth Hettena writes in The American Lawyer. But it's also where "Blalack and a small group of D.C. white collar attorneys thrive."

Blalack is a partner at O'Melveny & Myers LLP. He did not immediately return TPM's call seeking comment. Neither did Goldman Sachs, or subcommitee chair Sen. Carl Levin's (D-MI) office.

Here's Blalack advice to clients, according to Hettena's piece:

So to avoid his client getting buried, how does Blalack prepare him or her for a day before the committee? He tells them that the congressional hearing room is not a forum for getting at the truth. Don't get on a soapbox. A day in the klieg lights should end with minimal damage to reputation while not complicating a client's position in other investigations or litigation. Blalack says a well-trained witness can minimize exposure by simply running out the clock: "Long, thoughtful pauses followed by rambling nonresponsive answers can easily devour half of a member's allotted questioning time."

Not exactly an exercise in brevity or clarity.

And for more compelling moments from today's hearing:

  • Sen Carl Levin (D-MI) ripped a Goldman executive for pushing a financial product on customers after a colleague had labeled it a "shitty deal."
  • Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) tells Goldman execs why they're just like bookies.
  • Goldman execs won't apologize -- or express regret.

Reel by Michael Sweeney.

Comments (42) | Join the Conversation!

April 27, 2010 7:32 PM   

I can hear it now, as they walk up to the guillotine: "now where do I put my neck again?".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 8:10 PM    in reply to cwnidog

Heh. They'll have to consult each other, and their binders, asking which page refers to the guillotine...

Oy. Sad, isn't it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 1:12 AM    in reply to LisB

Hey, that's what the congress folk do so you really can't blame an intelligent "witness" from doing the same thing, can you?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 7:38 PM   

so a colleague calls a deal shitty and the deal should be killed? seriously? investment banks structured deals and some people bought them and some people bought the other side or the structurer hedged themselves if they ended up holding part of the deal on their books. this is how markets work people. now if fraud took place then that's something for the SEC to investigate and prosecute.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 8:11 PM    in reply to martis

Wait, so creating a deal that you know is bad so one of your customers (who coincidentally helps design it) can bet against it, all the while promoting it to other, unsuspecting customers is just 'how markets work'?

Especially considering that the more money suckers dump into it, the higher the profit of those betting against it?

If some completely independent party reviewed an investment vehicle, determined it was destined to fail and bet against it, then yes - I agree that's how the market works. Messed up as it is.

But if that party had a hand in designing the investment, and the investment creator was promoting the opposite position to its customers, that should be illegal. If it isn't now, it needs to be.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

April 27, 2010 8:19 PM    in reply to Forrest

Not only that: as I understand it, when investors asked for an independent assessment, Goldman gave them a favorable analysis writtenn by the very guy who designed the deal without revealing to them that (a) he had put the package together in the first place; and that (b) he was shorting it.

However you slice it, that's fraud.

The ratings agencies who rated this crap as AAA should be hit, too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 10:00 PM    in reply to slb

We built a shitty car. Let's sell the hell out of it. I got a shitty medical degree at a shitty offshore university. Let's line you up for your quintuple bypass surgery. Shit I love shit and money and shit like that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 8:29 AM    in reply to slb

ok columbo i'm glad you have all the details of how this particular deal went down. amazing insights.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 7:48 PM   

also, assuming no fraud took place, why is goldman being punished for managing their risk by finding clients who believed that housing was going to go up and others who believed it would go down? look at merrill or morgan stanley, they didn't manage their risk and ended up seriously costing their shareholders and needing gov't bailouts! i'm not saying goldman is some squeaky clean player but this is the world they operate in and they are generally very good at making money for themselves and their clients.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 8:07 PM    in reply to martis

Oh it's all about making money for yourself and your favorite clients. Lie to and screw everyone else ...... 8 million jobs lost ...... worldwide financial meltdown..... when do you economic sociopaths ever quit masturbating yourselves to financial statements? When your dead?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 10:56 PM    in reply to hollywood

That was great. "masturbating on their financial statements"...lol.. way to go Hollywood...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 8:28 AM    in reply to hollywood

hey buddy my masturbation habits are my own business ... but seriously, you are blindly assuming the SEC has its facts straight. this is an agency grasping for a shred of credibility given its recent monumental failures. going forward on a thin case with a populists' villian is not beyond them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 8:35 AM    in reply to hollywood

discussing finance with fellow progressives is a lost cause. now i'll get slammed for calling myself a progressive when i work in investment banking and actually give a shit about the work i do and clients i work for.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 9:37 AM    in reply to martis

I to agree with you there. In any investment, there are two sides to the coin, those betting for and those against. Either side is legitimate so long as there is disclosure of the risk. I have no problem with these types of investments as long as the investors are sophisticated and the returns appropriately reflect the risk. I admit that I haven't been following this case as closely as I should be, but I think most, if not all, of the investors here were institutional clients, not individual mom & pop investors (correct me if I am wrong).

Look, even in the financial world, many people look askance at those who take short positions - I am a restructuring professional, and I can't tell you how many times I have heard bankruptcy judges rail against short sellers because of the perception that they are playing more than a zero-sum game (i.e., not only do they make money when their level of the capital structure increases in value, but they make more money when other levels in the structure decrease). Nobody likes the guy who bets the "Don't Pass" line. The key there, as here, is disclosure.

I am not an apologist for Goldman here - I am all in favor of the investigation and if it turns out that there were folks there who actively concealed the nature of the risk involved in the transaction, string those guys up.

Sorry for the rambling - coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 8:13 PM    in reply to martis

Give me a break!

They made money for themselves and their clients by engineering those investments to fail spectacularly so they would make more money by representing the investments as sound. Lying/fraud is reliably more profitable than relying only on market forces.

It is organized crime plain and simple. The committee, Congress and all of us are getting played big time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 8:21 PM    in reply to martis

See Forrest's comments about, but, yes the government is alleging fraud. Specifically, they are alleging that GS engineered a CDO that was constructed entirely of mortgages they thought were bad, then sold these CDOs to investors without, you know, telling them that they were buying garbage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

April 27, 2010 8:21 PM    in reply to martis

"Assuming no fraud took place..."

This is a classic example of what is called "begging the question."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 8:35 PM    in reply to martis

I believe Goldman Sachs used, illegally, the private credit information of American citizens to engineer these investments. Then they had their "designed to fail" investments rubber stamped as AAA quality investments and sold them. It's this kind of fraud that undermines the free market. My goodness, I was overseas a few weeks ago ... Wall Street's big con job has seriously hurt people everywhere. Some justice is due.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 10:52 PM    in reply to John

I watched a lot of the coverage today and my observation was that they were stumbling and fumbling and hardly looked like "titans of the industry" and I thought.... these particular scum up there testifying just didn't care what was going on. They didn't care and I doubt they do care now. They just collected the big salaries and bonuses. We are dirt on the soles of their shoes. What happens to everyone else as a result of their greed doesn't bother them one bit. Death is too good for them.

And people don't understand why Obama can't snap his fingers and get "real" financial reform done....he is fighting the most powerful people in the world and they aren't going down easy. There are layers of walls of resistance. I give him credit for even tackling this....honestly...Even if we get financial reform and I believe we will, they are still going to fight him at every turn. This President is in for some tough, tough times from these folks. Time for dems and progs to get united.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 10:05 AM    in reply to chameleon

Second!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 11:48 PM    in reply to martis

Perhaps there ought to be other considerations besides how to make more money for clients. Like, for example, the good of the system as a whole or the good of the nation.

I know, I'm a dreamer...

But all of this - your comment included - illustrates the need for rules of the road to avoid creating a system that rewards those who sabotage it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 1:15 AM    in reply to benintn

Unfortunately, that's not the way capitalism works. "Dog eat dog" is too nice an analogy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 7:49 PM   

Jump, F*ckers, Jump?

Where do I line up to push?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 7:50 PM   

Or... we got into this mess because they're all that stupid?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

April 27, 2010 8:16 PM   

Oh, good strategy, guys. Piss the Senate off. Especially piss the moderate Republicans off. Get them pissed enough and a couple of them might even join the Democrats to break the filibuster on financial reform.

And whatever your brilliant lawyer says, your transparent strategy is not doing anything to prevent damage to the already sullied reputation of your employer. It's coming across that the people running Goldman Sachs are a bunch of venal, incompetent shits.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 10:12 AM    in reply to slb

Venal yes - incompetent, no, not by a long shot. Please find and read a copy of Matt Taibbi's Great American Bubble Machine just for starters. These scum know exactly what they are doing and there is a long history to prove it. The only shot our President has is to keep them in the kleig lights often and for as long as possible. He needs our help in that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 8:16 PM   

These are the people that need to be waterboarded.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

April 27, 2010 8:19 PM    in reply to Hoost

Co-sign.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 8:39 PM    in reply to Hoost

ditto!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 1:16 AM    in reply to John

Me three, except that waterboarding doesn't really drown them to death.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 9:18 PM   

Okay, so now that they've had their chance to speak on their behalf, begin discovery. Subpoena everything they own and keep those get-rich-quick artists too busy to make their precious moolah for months.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 9:20 PM    in reply to SuperJoe

Of course, assemble a grand jury to indict them first on fraud charges.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 9:44 PM   

Who said Goldman Sachs were a bunch of overpaid, arrogant, dishonest hacks who f*cked their clients every chance they got? They did, today.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 11:01 PM    in reply to traitorjoe

Yes they did. I watched a lot of it and the depth of their disdain for the people who would end up suffering most from their crimes of greed, was mind blowing, really. An absolute disgusting display of inhumanity.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 27, 2010 10:00 PM   

And like the auto execs and banker boyz, private jets took 'em to and fro.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 12:03 AM   

Same strategy was employed by Jeffrey Skilling during the Enron hearings and Oliver North during the Iran Contra hearings.
But these guys had the choice of looking guilty, or looking stupid and choose both!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 1:57 AM   

I wish they would have asked them how much money they each made last year, and the year before, and what the total is for the last 10 years they have run this casino scam out of the big banks. Each of those assholes is so fucking rich you would probably piss yourself!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 5:03 AM   

Might it be possible to change the rules of order?

If a Senator is to be allotted a fixed length of time, then that is his/her limit on the time used to frame the question, not the limit on the length of time the respondent takes to answer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 8:50 AM   

I hate these greedy bastards as much as anyone else, but, watching the outtakes, they're doing what I would do in that situation: be very, very careful you understand the question before you answer it. The Klieg lights are on, the general public is watching and listening, and so are all your colleagues as well as your boss, Lloyd C. Blankfein.

I really hope they break this bank up, and that the fraud charge (which looks pretty clear based on what I'm reading) sticks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 9:18 AM   

Don't lawyers get paid by the minute?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 28, 2010 2:41 PM   

These guys need to step back, step outside themselves and look down at what they have become. When they were children did they want to be grifters? Do they even realize that's what they have become?

And the right-wing morons who will bend over backwards to defend these practices simply because they are "capitalism", let me remind you that selling heroin is a form of capitalism too; there are limits to what is reasonable in a civilized society. Deliberately misleading your investors is not moral. If you want to save capitalism you damn well better start serious work on financial reforms, because another big Wall Street crash could bring about a depression big enough to destroy capitalism in the USA-- I don't care how serious a tea-bagger is about his/her beliefs, when you're starving and your kids are crying you won't be so steadfast on resisting a government handout because it's "socialism."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 13, 2010 8:02 AM   

Oh, good strategy, guys. Piss the Senate off. Especially piss the moderate Republicans off. Get them pissed enough and a couple of them might even join the Democrats to break the filibuster on financial reform.

And whatever your brilliant lawyer says, your transparent strategy is not doing anything to prevent damage to the already sullied reputation of your employer. It's coming across that the people running Goldman Sachs are a bunch of venal, incompetent shits.

jacket lovegra

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?