Gingrich was retained not to lobby, and he did not lobby, but to advise. In rendering that advice he applauded the company's plan in 2001, repeat 2001, to:
1.To issue subordinate debt-which is after all the company's business.
2. Manage liquidity-duh-with proper management of liquidity and capital we would not have the mortgage crisis.
3. Undergo capital stress tests-what could be more prudent?
4. Expand various types of risk disclosures-with more transparency there would have been no housing bubble at Fannie Mac.
In applauding these prudent innovations, Gingrich properly put the emphasis on the need to benefit the taxpayer.
Gingrich was allegedly retained to provide written materials. Anonymous sources from Freddie Mac, a hothouse of Democrat operatives, allegedly said:
"He was expected to provide written material that could be circulated among free-market conservatives in Congress and in outside organizations, said two former company executives familiar with Gingrich’s role at the firm. He didn’t produce a white paper or any other document the firm could use on its behalf, they said. "(emphasis supplied)
So, Gingrich did not provide any written material that Freddie Mac could use in its lobbying with Congress.
Why not?
So far all we know from this article is that he supported reforms that would have avoided the mortgage fiasco; what he applauded would have prevented the the meltdown; what he produced was of no use in lobbying Congress to perpetuate the Democrats' money machine.
This article is damning to Gingrich because? So far, it exonerates Gingrich of any conceivable wrongdoing.
