Too Big To Fail: The Secret Hank Paulson-Goldman Sachs Meeting In Moscow

Andrew Ross Sorkin's new book is out today, and breaks some pretty stunning news, dating from the end of June, 2008. At this point, we're still months away from the now-famous but then-secret waiver, issued in mid-September, which allowed Hank Paulson to talk to Goldman Sachs; he;d promised not to do that when he moved from Goldman to Treasury.

But it turns out that Paulson just happened to be in Moscow at the same time that Goldman's board of directors was having dinner there with Mikhail Gorbachev. (You know, as one does.) Take it away, Andrew:

Read the whole story

Comments

[gypsy508]

Business meeting? Obviously improper.
Social meeting? Infers friendship.

Either way, it's an inside plot.

[noweknow]

The face of a traitor to the American people.

[balancedsolution]

Of course Lurch was having secret meetings.

Gotta take care of his friends.

[uneeda]

how much money did goldman make out of their bets against lehman ?

[sueinmn]

There is no end to the corruption in this country!

All these years I believed countries like Mexico suffered corruption the worst.

Wow can any country beat America for corruption?

I think not!

[Tiggy]

They can't tell our congressmen and women who got what funds from TARP but HP can talk business with GS? Shocked...no Disgusted...yes. Even moreso because our congressmen and women refuse to extract the answers. If they can't account for it, it is stolen and that is a crime. So produce or go to jail. Actually, produce and then go to jail...any order will do.

[sonofsamphm1c]

I don't know who is telling you this, but they are lying. They know exactly how much TARP was loaned out and to whom.

The fact that they do not know exactly how, and to the penny, each recipient used the TARP is a meaningless pile of rubbish.

We know they maintained operations, defended lending levels, which Dizzy Lizzy and a bunch of other fools have conflated with increasing lending levels, which would have been impossible in an economic contraction, made acquisitions, often at the behest of the FDIC, paid down debt, bolstered capital levels, etc. All of those are exactly what you would expect them to do with it, and none of them could ever be confused with theft.

They have to pay it back with interest. Now that is something robbers seldom do.

[billyfitz]

What bank do you work for? Seriously, come clean.

[samaire]

whores ! Oh wait, thats not true, they EARN their money. Liars and cheats. Time to go to jail.

[PuzzledinPeoria]

Funny that my financial disclosure statement as a trustee on a small public library board seems to call for higher ethics than the United States Secretary of the Treasury.

[IWW]

Paulson can share a cell with MADOFF>

[sueinmn]

Paulson and Benanke still refuse to disclose who received the secret 1.24 Trillion dollars just before last election.

Its too bad we have different laws for different people/cor­porations.

[Sundialsvc4]

I should not have to add this, but I will ...

* Hank goes to jail
* Goldman Sachs goes to jail
* =any= Civil Officer =any-where= who knew, or should have known ... who was part of it or could have stopped it ... IS IMPEACHED ... "shall be removed from office" on the basis of that ... shall be bound over for criminal trial ... and if convicted ... shall be imprisoned.

Anyone. Everyone. Senator, Congressman, President, Veep, Supreme Court Justice, Commissioner ...

Here is your new "Standard of Professional Conduct." Thus Saith 308 Million People: "Article 2, Section 4, -IS- the Supreme Law of this Land, and it SHALL be Enforced upon every one of you."

This, by the way, is but our _minimum_ expectation for "any civil officer." Our _base_ standard is ...

... Excellence.

[Sundialsvc4]

In today's slightly more civilized world, it still might result in executions. But first, we must have an Impeachment, because "any civil officer" shall be ... impeached for ... bribery ... (Article 2, Section 4).

In "lesser" halls of Government, we have Open Meeting laws. In "lesser parts" of the Federal Government we read every hapless civil-servant the riot act that he or she has a sacred public trust ... you can go to jail for a long time for stealing stamps. If you serve on a local school-board and tilt contracts toward your brother's constructi­on-company ... "busted."

So, how does a hapless government servant who's SERVING twenty-years for such a thing, feel about "high crime" to THIS gargantuan scale? Why did he lose his freedom, over a matter that MIGHT have swindled a few hundred-thousand, maybe a million-or-two, people ... while this guy walks scot-free for having betrayed 308 Million folks (including you, including me)?

Where's the double-standard? Well, according to nothing less than The Supreme Law Of The Land, there IS no double-standard. Hank Paulson should go to prison, =AND= so should these officials of Goldman Sachs.

What's it to be? If our laws are not to be enforced, then our nation is naked. If we are to enjoy ANYTHING that our Constitution promises us, then that Constitution must BE "the supreme law."

[BBackSoon]

In a less civilized time this would have resulted in executions.

Oh, the good old days!

[TXfemmom]

WTF, this should be front page news, and Paulson should be under indictment. He had signed all kinds of things, in order to become Treasury Secretary, which specifically and completely ruled out an encounter such as this. HE NEEDS TO GO TO THE SLAMMER.

[sonofsamphm1c]

He got a waiver. End of your case.

[mssmartypants]

This SHOULD be front-page news, but it won't be, and it especially won't be tv news, because reporting it requires [1] a little research, [2] understanding an issue more complex than runaway flying saucers, and [3] the ability to explain that issue to the public. I.e., journalism, a lost art. Rachel Maddow might be able to do it, but she's already preaching to the choir. If it won't fit on a 3-word tea-party sign, you won't hear about it.

[sonofsamphm1c]

The waiver is old news. That has been known about for months and months. Once he had a waiver, there was going to be a meeting. We already knew that. Who cares where they met?

What did he need to know from GS? Whether or not they could survive the failure of more than one more large financial firm. The answer was probably not. He may have asked what other entities, corporations and nations, would fail if GS failed. Meeting over.

Of course, the irrational and stupid see this as a lost opportunity to kill off genuine evil: Saddam Sachs.

That is not what it was.