Skip to comments.Why Would Matt Bevin Tell His Investors Something He Didn't Believe? | National Review Online
Posted on 02/11/2014 12:14:43 PM PST by FreeAtlanta
As Ramesh points out below, Kentucky Senate candidate Matt Bevin's campaign is claiming that he has consistently opposed the Troubled Asset Relief Program, drawing a contrast with Mitch McConnell, who has defended his role in passing the emergency bailout legislation. This is despite the fact that, as president of an investment firm in 2008, he signed a letter along with the firm's chief investment officer that says the following:
Most of the positive developments have been government led, such as the effective nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the passage of the $700 billion TARP (don't call it a bailout) and the Federal Reserve's intention to invest in commercial paper. These moves should help to stabilize asset prices and help to ease liquidity constraints in the financial system. The government actions to date have been reasonably swift and substantial. The Federal Reserve seems to understand the magnitude of the problem and the underlying issues involved.
Bevin told The Blaze that he "didn't actually write the letter." ....
Article Link: Why Would Matt Bevin Tell His Investors Something He Didn't Believe? | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/370838/why-would-matt-bevin-tell-his-investors-something-he-didnt-believe-patrick-brennan)
The article is a hit piece. At least they had the integrity to admit that the didn't write the letter. Still the intent is obvious and the fear can be smelled and felt.
So National Review is the hit man for the GOPe. Just wanted to clear that up.
The Nobles are in panic and William Wallace is wearing a Matt Bevin 2014 T-shirt. “Are you ready for a war”?
He was on G. Beck radio this morning.
His answer was clear, simple, made sense, and was unrehearsed.
GOPe is terrified of this man.
I only wish I could vote for him myself.
OK just how many KY Voters read “National Review”?
McConnell is calling in favors, getting his people to get dirty on Bevin. Hopefully, Kentucky responds the way Texas did when Dewhurst took this route against Cruz.
Support Matt Bevin to oust Mitch McConnell in KY
YUP....the elitists are OUTTING themselves....
Hit piece, yes.
What we are seeing is simple:
1. The President of the firm knew that something was wrong with TARP.
2. The Investment Exec. was “on board” with the Federal solution.
3. The President was barred by Fed Regulations from speaking his mind and was, in fact, compelled by law to sign his name to a document he disagreed with and was prevented by law from saying so.
What we see here is why Fed regulations are so evil and stupid.
Exactly. Flop Sweat by Mitch.
They were for “President Giuliani” quite early; and yes, they have been regular backers of GOP-E candidates for a long time. Romney was their choice in 2012.
This is a Republic not an aristocracy Mcconnell isn’t senator for life.
From the Bevin/Beck interview...
I was not the investment guy, he said, I never bought and sold the securities. So it would have been inappropriate and probably illegal, frankly, for me to have changed the investing commentary written by the sub-adviser the fund who was responsible for that.
I had a fiduciary responsibility as the chairman of this fund company to make sure that I was not perceived in any way, shape or form as having commentary on buy and sell decisions, he said. That was the responsibility of the adviser to the fund. And for me to have meddled in that would have been highly, highly inappropriate and all of these various SarbanesOxley rules among others would have been very much in my grill had I attempted to rewrite or meddle or make the thinking of the actual fund manager that of my own.
I thought I heard that Pollutico was the designated media recipient, which would make NRO a satellite hit man.
In any event, Mitch McConnell apparently doesn't relize that he decisively holed his own hull when he launched a torpedo at Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, and he is now doubling down on his nastiness.
Excellent explanation by Bevins, and it comes across clearly as such with no hint of it being a convienient excuse. Not only that it sheds a nice light onto the complexities and burdens created by government overregulation.
But it highlights the challenge with this sort of thing: will the average voter (particularly in the general election) be able to really understand it.
“I only wish I could vote for him myself.”
Does not mean you can’t go to his website and donate a few bucks...I did and I can’t vote for him either.
Bwahahahahaha... I LOL’ed.
The Empire Strikes Back.
National Review should be asking McConnell about all of his lies and flips.
Few simple-minded ‘folks’ and LIVs will know the difference, though.
Hardly goes there (National Review) anymore.
wow. They are really digging deep to pull up dirt on Bevin.
When National Review made Mandela out to be a Saint and the most wonderful human being who ever lived, I knew it was the end.
Having experienced this in KS for years, if a conservative runs whether or not to unseat a RINO (known as "moderates" in KS, in the past) will find far greater resistance from GOPe than the democrat party!
Everyone will jump into the fray to disparage whichever conservative candidate has the best chance to win, including and especially the media!
Conservatives will run against democrats, GOPe and media and should they win a Primary, the GOPe will gang up against the conservative Primary winner and support the democrat!
Bevin was interviewed on Beck’s show today, he stated:
He did not write the commentary or opinion, and in fact, steered away from doing so, for the ethical and legal purposes. The financial investment arena is the most regulated in the country, and he was following the laws and regulations as the chairman and any attempt to reword the investment opinion of the people who had been hired by law to make that opinion, would have been illegal. It was required by law, for him to verify the veracity of the financial statement. It would have been ILLEGAL for him to change what was put in that report.
The letter he signed was that he verified the actual financial facts and figures, not the opinions or commentary and had nothing to do with the comments or opinions therein.
But, leave it to the left, to twist it into what it is not, to throw mud. They apparently, are afraid of Bevin. Good.
Bevin did what he was legally REQUIRED to do. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or an idiot. Bob
Love to have a list of conservative media vs rino media. Don’t remember why I stopped reading NR. Maybe this is why.
If that list was compiled on here, there would be no “non-RINO” media, LOL.
It’s only just begun!
I hope conservatives don’t get all weak-need over this.
You must know something about KY Republican primary voters that I do not.
Buckley turned against the JBS, endorsed marijuana for “fun”, and reared a socialist son. Still he was brilliant and amusing.
This is the poster child for the KY standpatters.
If Bevin was ‘CEO’ why couldn’t he refuse to sign, and or move to fire the Statist writing the Annual Report?
Does Bevin have evidence to give us that he eventually DID fire that person penning this pro-TARP stuff?
Sorry, it’s a huge disappointment. Even tho McConnell should indeed GO. There is No way to say otherwise.
I found his lawyerly responses on Beck unconvincing he basically said
“Hey I was ONLY THE COMPANY’s CEO, WHAT COULD I DO?” [/s]
disappointing but he still seems like, so far, as an improvement over McConnell
Bevin is a man.
NR and McConnell are girly men.
Bevin is a man.
NR and McConnell are girly men.
Actually, they admitted that he claimed he did not write the letter.
Which wasn’t the issue. A letter was sent from his firm, with his signature, telling people investing in his firm that the TARP was a great thing.
Was he lying to his investors? Or is he misleading now when claiming he did not support TARP?
I wish the TARP supporters would have the courage to just admit it. It was a solid concept, and mostly worked, and we got back almost all the money spent. As government programs go, and as originally intended, it was a “success”.
The biggest flaw was the ability for the president to spend the money returned from TARP on other “tarp-like” things, allowing Obama a slush fund to send money to his buddies.
Your list does not quite fit the facts of federal regulations. No man can be forced by the government to mislead investors.
Which does not explain why he did not issue his own letter as President saying he did not personally support TARP; it just explains his reasoning regarding the letter.
I’m not sure I believe that he actually thought that much about the letter at the time.
I remember that Rick Perry fell into a similar problem with TARP because of a letter he wrote. I remember a lot of people here at this site who took quite the opposite position about his explanations of what his letter actually meant.
One thing I’m sure of — the democrats will be quite pleased if we make this election about the opposition to TARP, given that TARP was one of the only things we did in 2008 that actually worked at all. Much better than fighting Obamacare, I’m sure they will agree.
He explained this. As CEO, he is required by law to sign every financial disclosure and he is prohibited from interfering and imposing his opinion. IOW, he had no choice but to sign what an underling wrote.
TARP was a disaster.
Educate me as to what, in particular, was misleading in the document for the hedge fund’s investors? You have basically inferred that crimes were committed by Bevin. Please, name them for me.
The Government cannot force a signature on a document? Please tell the IRS, my bank’s regulator, and now my Health Insurance company that. Too funny.
“So National Review is the hit man for the GOPe. “
Just when you think that National Review has sunk as low as it can get they find a way to dig a deeper hole.
What a pathetic rag, a disgrace to the great men who wrote for it in the past.
It is such a relief not to subscribe to this progessive-leaning rag anymore. They have become what they set out to defeat under WFB. Bob
Why would there be an inference of a crime? I actually said I thought he was being truthful in the prospectus, and that his signature was not placed on a document for which he thought there was factual errors.
According to the interpretation here of what he is NOW saying, HE is saying that the paper he signed was misleading, in that in had opinions in it that he strongly disagreed with, but that he did not think it was appropriate to make any corrections to, or to say anything anywhere about.
It that is true, then I would argue that he was misleading back when, knowing his fund managers were saying positive things about TARP, and if he strongly disagreed, by not issuing his own public statement stating his opinion about TARP and how it could impact people who were investing in things his company was selling.
His position seems to be that he had no obligation, and in fact was ethically constrained, from stating an opinion that was different from the opinion of the people he or his board hired to run the funds for which he, as the man in charge, was required to affix his signature to.
I find it somewhat odd (this is not specific to this case, just in general) that there would be a requirement to sign something that wasn’t supposed to mean that you had reviewed what you were signing and had no factual objections.
Which actually brings up the real question — factually, was TARP a bad thing? He seems to be saying that the issue of TARP being good or bad was entirely a matter of opinion, and therefore he had no place substituting his opinion for that of the manager. That is a reasonable position, unless he now wants to insist that TARP was factually bad and that he factually knew it to be bad at the time.
I guess you could claim that the government “forces” you to put your signature on your taxes. But you do know that when you do, the IRS then expects that you agree with everything said on the form, and could prosecute you for perjury for anything that turns out to be false.
Note that in one sense, the fight of the Catholic Sisters over the Obamacare abortion mandate is precisely one of whether the government can force a person to sign something they disagree with, and it looks like the government will lose that one. So yes, I will stand by my statement, that the government cannot force you to sign something that you believe to be false, when your signature is supposed to signify agreement.
(note that you have to sign a speeding ticket, but it expressly says that the signature is not an agreement to the charge, but just an acknowledgement that you read the ticket).