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).
I do not want to disagree with you because your response is so well written, well thought out, and reasonable. I apologize, I may have been a little snarky in my own initial response.
However - hindsight is so unfortunate for Bevin. Bevin could not have known whether his opinion at the time (anti-TARP) was correct. And, very importantly, if I understand correctly, he was not “permitted” to convey an opinion in the first place.
Now, he looks back on it and wishes he had made different choices. Maybe at times he feels like he should have acted or should have spoken out.
Regret is something that I am unable to condemn a man for if he is truly apologetic. Especially in a matter of opinion when, at the time, the future was unknown.
As you write, one could make compelling arguments that Bevin was wrong then and now and that TARP was helpful both to the banking system and profitable for the American citizen. I do not know.
You wrote, “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.”
Regarding the above: I can only say that it is possible you have never had the singular opportunity to work in politics on financial regulatory procedure. I have not. I have friends who have, however. What you describe above - though I agree it is absolutely nonsensical - seems to be just the sort of thing they often complain about.
We are governed by the most foolish of us.