Skip to comments.Gibbs Stonewalls On Prior Knowledge Of AIG Bonuses
Posted on 03/16/2009 3:51:36 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Somewhere Ron Ziegler is laughing . . .
Pres. Nixons feisty late press secretary would have to tip his hat to Robert Gibbs for the brazen stonewall he put up today to Jake Tappers line of questioning on what the Obama administration knew about the AIG bonuses and when they knew it. Tappers basic point was this: instead of trying to stop the bonuses now, when the administration is in a relatively weak bargaining position, why didnt the administration demand that the bonuses be killed as a condition for the granting of the latest billions in bailout money given to AIG only a couple weeks ago?
As youll see from the ABC transcript, Tapper ventured no fewer than 11 questions going to the point. But Gibbs had the smoke-and-dust machine turned to high, and never gave a straight answer. The strong of stomach can view the video for the full exchange. Credit Tapper for his persistence. With a recalcitrant press secretary before him and a roomful of impatient reporters behind him, it took chutzpah to hang in there. CNNs Ed Henry gets a major assist: after Jake eventually had to yield the floor, Henry asked a follow-up on the same subject, and eventually Gibbs had to give some ground, saying hed ask the Treasury why Geithner didnt review the bonus-granting contracts before cutting the latest check to AIG.
View video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at finkelblog.com ...
‘Stonewall’ Robert Gibbs ping to Today show list.
I wish I had contractually provided bonuses at my job. I don’t even have base pay reduction protection. :(
I got “video not found”.
Glad to see Tapper’s still going after ‘em.
Hadn’t heard anything from him for awhile. (Not that I’m exactly glued to press conferences starring Bambi’s buttboy Gibbs.)
Good luck getting anything out of the Zero Team, though, Jake.
What do you want to bet that every single one of the execs that got a bonus is a heavy contributor to the ‘Rats.
I just tried it and it worked fine. Please try again and let me know if you have a problem:
>> contractually provided bonuses
Isn’t that an oxymoron?
Well, it could be a contractual bonus based on, say, profitability or something. That would make sense.
Jake Tapper is turning out to be one of the good guys. Go get ‘em Jake!
Gibbs should have told the truth—if we had done that, we wouldn’t have been able to demagogue the issue, duh!!!
ImmatureAmateur.Presidential.Administration.Ever. (After Clinton Inc, that's really saying something).
Everyone knows this bailout bs is all about political paybacks both here and abroad.
Just seeing a still photo of Gibbs is enough to turn my stomach.
>> Jake Tapper is turning out to be one of the good guys. Go get em Jake!
Jake Tapper is just being a JOURNALIST. Cynical and adversarial towards EVERYONE.
Real journalists like Jake were what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote freedom of the press into the Bill of Rights — not the biased, agenda driven pseudo-journalist infotainment losers we’re overrun with now.
>> Just seeing a still photo of Gibbs is enough to turn my stomach.
There’s something about his chinless little junior-high-school dweeb face that just makes me want to smack it as hard as I can with a dodgeball.
I’d gladly run a few extra laps for that privilege.
ya know. whats more outrageous employees that are given ‘bonus’ money in lieu of actual salary which is very common or laid off auto workers who stay home and still make $75 an hour of tax payer money. My vote is the unionized auto worker.
They had to know and are just pulling the wool over America's eyes - which is their modus operandi!
AIG should have realized this was going to be a PR disaster when they offered bonuses for people to stay on.
Wonder if Obama’s teleprompter will ever have to answer this question in a press conference?
AIG is the Governments' lynchpin for distributing money to foreign banks. They (FED or Treasurey) give the money to AIG, to funnel it to China, European and Australian BAnks. They do this to keep these banks from imploding because these banks were levereged more than Bear-Stearns, Goldman, and Morgan Stanley combined. These foeign banks bought "securities" in the form of derivitives to securitize the 100:1 levereged purchaces of stocks, bonds, etc. The contract between those agents and AIG were to trigger performance and payment of those securtized purchaces if their purchaces became actual loses. As long as there was no downturn in those equities, the security was nominal. Once triggered it had to be payed by contractural obligation. But once a claim was made for specific performance, AIG said, "We ain't got the money!" This meant it put all of the European and Chinese banks at risk for immediate (IMMEDIATE) insolvency. Not 24 hours later. RIght then and there! That is what happened on September 16,2009, a date which will live in enfamy.
The people of the United STAtes of AMerica own 80% of AIG. Treasury and the FED will never, never allow AIG to move to insolvency because it will mean the destruction, in a very immediate sense of the entire global economies.
So, all you are hearing from Barney Fag, Obama, and the rest, is simply posturing and mugging for the camera. It is a disgusting display of politics at its most cynical.
Folks, we are screwed, blued, and tatooed. There in no way out of this ditch. Bernanke trying to let the derivitive bubble burst in slowmotion is fantasy land. There are more than 1.4 quadrillion dollars of derivitives out there waiting to be triggered. And if, if, the derivitives don't take us down, the ensuing lawsuits for nonperformance surely will.
Get out of debt, protect you and your families to best of you ability and pray. Ruination is just around the corner. This administration looks like the Marxs Brothers and keystone cops all rolled into one.
You mean you don't trust these guys on the economy?
They look so experienced and confidence inspiring.
In the ideal sense, maybe. But in practice, wasn't it Jefferson who had journalists on his payroll digging up dirt and muckraking his political foes?