John carney from the Wall Street journal has once again made a misguided attempt to bash current shareholders of Fannie and Freddie, but this time he overplayed his hand. On Friday John gleefully announced that a decision by Judge Amy Jackson in a derivatives case involving Fannie Mae dealt a major blow to the legal cases of Fairholme and Ackman. This created quite a stir and prompted ValueWalk to publish an article about it entitled “Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac: Big Ackman Court Loss?” http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/09/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-first-court-loss-today/)
We immediately alerted our readers that this was laughable; it is a totally unrelated matter and has no bearing on the arguments being made in our cases. This was nothing new from John, both he and his employer (WSJ) have been engaged in an all out attack on the private shareholders of Fannie and Freddie for a while now.
I want to update our readers as to the debate that John and I have been planning. Malka Zeefe Senior Bankruptcy Correspondent at The Capitol Forum had graciously volunteered to be a moderator to help ensure that the debate would be conducted professionally, and ensure both parties received a chance to defend their positions. John then sent this email to us which we still are trying to decipher.
While I like the idea of a debate, a couple of caveats.
1) I have to get all public appearances approved by my higher-ups. Quite standard procedure but rules is rules. As I’m relatively new to the WSJ, I’m not sure how open they are to this sort of thing.
2) I’m not an advocate of a position the way you are. I don’t have a stake in the outcome. Instead, I have a view on the way the legal documents work, a view on the prospects of the companies and a view on desirable reforms for housing. I’m willing to defend these views but it should be clear that that is all they are: informed opinions.
3) We’ll have to agree on format, question for debate, and all that.
4) No debate will take place if there are any further attacks on my character, my employer, or similar fits of insulting behavior. I have no interest in debating fools or fanatics who cannot conduct themselves in a civilized way.
5) Although I cannot speak for my employers, your earlier attacks on them make it impossible for me to contemplate even asking them if I could debate you. You’ve already gone beyond the realm of civilized discourse.
6) So you’ll have to find a suitable person for me to debate on the subject.
He starts out stating fairly normal terms of debate and then like the government takes a schizophrenic turn and proceeds to decline to debate based on our characterizations of him and the WSJ.
John, I apologize if you have taken offense to our characterizations of you and the WSJ. It is simply our belief that you and the WSJ have been presenting a very one-sided view of the Fannie/Freddie story that has led us to draw these conclusions. The lack of honest reporting concerning the blatant theft of all of Fannie and Freddies profits is especially alarming to us.
I think the debate could help everyone involved get a much better grasp on the true picture. I also believe that a debate such as this could attract quite a bit of attention, and it would be nice if we could use it to raise money for charity.
I am open to a variety of terms and understand that you have obligations to consider as well. I would propose that we set up an online forum in which to have it.
We could have a moderator (Malka Zeefe has offered) who would review our proposed questions/topics and present them. We do not have to have strict time constraints; it can be fairly open-ended.
We could each invite other people to join our respective side to offer a broader array of opinions.
I hope we can put our past differences aside and go through with this debate. It could be a lot of fun, and maybe we could help some people out in the process.
I honestly believe that this issue is if critical importance and our dialogue could help shape the debate. Thanks
We have not heard back from John as of today.I was not surprised to see John back out, for the government has offered no legitimate defense for their actions, therefore, those like Carney and the WSJ, who choose to defend them have nothing to defend. Our government claims to have done nothing wrong yet when given the opportunity prove their innocence they have chose to stall, delay and hide all of the evidence that could prove their innocence, this forces those who choose to defend them no option but to do the same.
John claims he is just “analyzing the facts” yet closer examination shows that he is cherry picking certain facts that support the government while ignoring the truth that would expose their lawlessness. I am sorry John if you take offense to the truths that we find so evident, but you my friend are nothing more than a propaganda minister. You are not a “journalist.” As propaganda minister, your role is to create confusion while blindly rationalizing the governments brazen attempts to trample the rule of law.
It is critical for a democracy to have a free press that is Unafraid to expose our government when they attempt to trample the constitution. In the case of Fannie and Freddie many like John in the financial press have chosen rather to try and rationalize and justify these actions.They are committing the ultimate sin in a democracy. Unlike John, we are not beholden to anything but the truth. Here we will remain shining our light of truth on everyone involved in the Soviet-style profit grab.
Our offer remains open to having a moderated debate with not only John, but anyone who would like to defend our governments illegal seizure of private profits.
Unlike John we are working on a post that will be of concern to our readers regarding the Perry Injunction, stay tuned and as always Keep the Faith!!