All of the people should be executed with piano wire around their neck
Update: Allah’s got video. Ditto what Allah says about Frank: “What a wretch.”
I noted in the public flogging liveblogging below that Rep. Barney Frank rather flippantly dismissed the death threats against AIG executives.
Edward Liddy read this threat, after which Frank smirked, “I am not persuaded:”
All of the people should be executed with piano wire around their neck.
I ahbor the AIG bailouts. I abhor the Hypocrites of High Indignation who enabled them.
But when someone reads a threat like that, you do not shrug your shoulders and respond, as Frank did, that “Everyone here” gets those threats.
I repeat: The AIG employees and their families are not public officials. They do not deserve to be subjects of a witch hunt.
The thug Democrats are overreaching on this, and it is going to backfire.
The Hill reports:
House Financial Service Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) wants the names of AIG employees who refuse to return at least some of their bonuses, and lawmakers appear split on the request.
“I’m now asking you to send us the names of people receiving the bonuses who are not paying them back,” Frank told AIG Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy during a Wednesday hearing.
Frank said if he did not receive the names he would move to ask his committee to vote to subpoena the names.
Liddy said that he “very much” wants to comply with Frank’s request, but said he feared for the employees’ safety.
“I would hope it doesn’t take a subpoena,” he said. “I’m just really concerned about the safety of our people.”
Liddy read from one threat: “‘All of the people should be executed with piano wire around their neck,’” he said.
Some Senate Republicans sympathized with Liddy’s concerns about potentially exposing the executives to public harm.
“My gut reaction is that there’s so much rage, I don’t want any violence taking place,” said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). “I’ve got to be a little tempered in my response. But I do think they should either return the money or be fired.”
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, said public anger should be focused instead on the Treasury Department, which knew about the bonuses. “The administration could have easily dealt with this,” Corker said.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Bush nostalgia: Let’s not get carried away, ok?
November 9, 2010 10:04 AM by Michelle Malkin
91 CommentsAll the president’s Goldman Sachs men; Update: A look at the White House visitor logs
April 21, 2010 05:51 AM by Michelle Malkin
110 Comments
10 House Republicans for arbitrary salary control; Minority Whip Cantor votes “present” (!)
April 1, 2009 10:32 PM by Michelle Malkin
95 Comments
Financial manipulation alert: Did AIG bailout money secretly prop up banks?
March 30, 2009 10:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
41 Comments
Categories: AIG
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dRedstate
» Media MattersHot Air
» National Review to Newt: Get outAmSpecBlog
» Explosion Near Israeli Embassy in India
Now this is what I like to see.
Speaking of piano wire…if they wanted to use it on the people responsible for the collapse of the economy, they would need a bale of that wire, then start with all the members of Congress, the current admnistration, plus some past administrations.
What the hell is the matter with the people in Mass. are they really that stupid, they believe in a fairy tale, then actually try and make it real thru the Kennedy clan?
There is no excuse for Franks, he is a freak, plan and simple. If any of these exec’s or their families are harmed in anyway these bastard politicians need to pay.
I see a mountain of anger building within the conservatives of country and Tea Parties are the polite way of showing it…the libs had best stop pushing before it’s too late.
You mean by publishing the names, addresses, and names of the children of everyone who got a bonus, so they can be found and murdered by some out of control kook who thinks they stole the money? Was that your question? Geez!
What names? The bonus recipients? Where did they get them?
Maybe we could get all the perps to go for midnight rides with Senator Kennedy!
What fun!
No, that wasn’t my question. But you already knew that.
No, actually I didn’t. What exactly was the question again, and why did you ask it? I apparently misunderstood what you meant.
Did you really think I was asking why weren’t the names released so that people could hunt them down and kill their spouses, children and pets?
I give up.
Hypocrite Alert!
Remember when MM posted the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of UC Santa Cruz students? Remember when they received death threats but MM wouldn’t take down the info?
Way to be principled Michelle.
I seriously doubt some wackjob is going to go after any of these people (wackjobs seem to be into more degenerate stuff). Madoff probably has more to worry about.
Even so, 73 people received $1 million…1 out of 73 is 1.4%. For $1 million dollars, I like those odds.
The simple answer is because a right to privacy can only be abridged by due process of law. Such process could have been included as a condition of the bailout, but was omitted from the legislation. Since the bailout also did not stipulate that AIG was now a “public entity” or GSE, or any other special term they wanted to make up, then it is still a private entity like any other, and entitled to the same protections. There is no such thing as “group rights” so it would be a misnomer to say that AIG has privacy rights, only legal protections. But those rights most certainly do apply to the individuals in the employ of AIG.
Think of it like this… any time a defense contractor builds a new plane for a DoD order, they bid on a contract… the contract stipulates what will be delivered at what price, as part of the bidding contract… Unless specifically included in the contract as reporting requirements, the contractor is under no obligation to disclose what part of the price goes towards materials as opposed to labor. And certainly not the compensation of each individual employee, which is undeniably private information.
The ludicrous idea being floated around that individuals can be retroactively penalized for the bonus payments they legally received is blatantly unconstitutional.
bluesoc,
The santa cruz protesters volunteered their contact information in the form of a press release. They did not have a congressman swoop and and declare that their personal information must be released.
The Constitution? You mean that document that has been shredded, pulverized, encased in concrete and dumped in the Potomac?
When the speaker of the House, Porklosi, says that enforcing immigration laws is un-American…
We.Are.So.Screwed.
“What are their names, mien Herr?”
Sen. Franks is chilling.
That does not change the fact that Michelle is showing a lack of principle.
Her reason for opposing the release of the information is that it will put the executives in danger.
Although the students’ info was available in a press release, MM was instrumental in disseminating such information. The information may have technically been available, but in reality it was Michelle’s action that created the danger.
No Mookie, I didn’t. But I just wondered why you asked that question unless you felt the public had a right to know who those people are. Like I said, I may have misunderstood. So I ask you again…why exactly did you ask that question? I’m not trying to put you down. I’m serious.
For some reason, I didn’t know you were a troll. Now I know.
Khyris – Good explanation. Should be sufficient for anyone with a brain. But Southpaw is correct. The Constitution was severely injured in the 1930′s and never recovered.
You exclude the fact that the organization (SAW) themselves exposed their own information in a press release. You make it sound as though Michelle individually hunted them down. A group, I might add, that was openly promoting and encouraging sedition and wished to grow the size of their group. Only after they realized what they had done did they remove their names from the release.
This is quite a bit different from executives that were paid according to a contract they had with their employer.
…but we’ll note your enthusiasm for keeping these AIG executives anonymous.
Southpaw,
If I may clarify further, this is in reference to congress wishing to “recoup” alleged “losses” from these bonus bailouts by retroactively taxing individuals. There is nothing stopping congress from shrinking the size of future payments to AIG, or as the contolling interest holder, establishing some kind of lein against profits going forward. Note, however, that NEITHER of these approaches require the acquisition, let alone publication, of private citizens’ personal information.
Article 1 section 9
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No backdoor from doing it via state taxes either:
Article 1 section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Personally, I was troubled by Michelle’s handling of the Santa Cruz situation. Needless to say, I was a little surprised to see her take this post (which I happen to agree with).
It makes me think her post is purely political and not principled.
The last approval rating for Congress I saw was 18%. If they had any honesty or decency they would give 82% of their congressional wages back to the American people.
Although my phone number and address are already available to the public. I’d be pretty upset if, because of my criticism, Michelle posted my personal info on her site. Wouldn’t you?
Even if the students’ info was publicly available, MM created a much greater danger by posting it to her site.
This point came up on Mark Levin’s show. Unfortunately, ex post facto law only applies strictly to criminal law thanks to the Supreme Court of 1798.
Specifically, they mention Calder v. Bull (1798).
bluesoc,
I think you’ll find that the principle… of inidividuals accepting the consequences of their actions… is consistently applied.
On the one hand, you have a bunch of kids who published their contact info in a press release, believing the agit-prop stunt would catapult them to fame and social acceptance amongst their peers.
On the other, you have a congressman demanding the personal information of private citizens who made NO SUCH CHOICE be released. The release has NO effect on whether the AG’s office can evaulate the legality of the bonuses, NOR congressional ability to attempt to “rectify” them in whatever misguided manner they would attempt. The ONLY purpose the release would serve would be to provide Frank et al for convenient scapegoats.
The one group made the CHOICE to publicly present themselves to be recieved as either heros or miscreants.
That it did not work out as well as they had hoped is irrelevent.
The other group is being COMPELLED to present themselves ONLY AS TARGETS.
This is Frank merely attempting to avoid his OWN personal responsibility and public opinion of the choices HE made which enabled these bonuses.
Their names, phone numbers, and email addys were included in the press release. That’s hardly the same thing has having sourced them from general information.
Those students identified themselves as leaders of SAW which was encouraging public action and communicating through public channels. They only decided that they preferred anonymity after there was backlash, but the cat was already out of the bag. They wanted others to commit crimes and Michelle posted it on her blog. How is she culpable for their actions and maintaining their anonymity when they themselves released it?
I am honestly trying to see your side in this, but I cannot. These three students put themselves out in the public forum. AIG executives that received retention payments did not put themselves out into the public forum. Your declaration of hypocrisy is attempting to connect the two as parallel, is it not?
We seem to be in agreement that these AIG executives should not be exposed, so this all might be a non-sequitur from the topic at hand.
I like your response better than my own.
That principle would imply that the names should be revealed. The employees chose to accept the bonuses, and they should accept all the consequences of that choice. I disagree with such a principle.
Hi, Joy! Taking a break from packing, (partial DTY… for one thing, I don’t trust others to move my hard assets & firearms [grin]…).
I agree, but w/a change I have finally been forced to face:
Its always about power and control for
DemsProgressivesI’ve come, kicking & screaming, to realize Beck is correct: both parties are infiltrated.
Off the top of my head, see:
3Ne6:15-17,27-30;
Alma10:57; Alma11:20
Alma46:7-10; Alma48;
Morm8:26+ ;
Ether8:20+
Dad says Hi!
I believe you’ve made an inductive leap here. How would choosing to accept the retention payment (really, it means doing nothing to stop it) come with a consequence of public exposure? Congress shouldn’t get to decide what the consequences are after the fact.
Who would ever suspect that an employment contract with what was then a private employer would be something that would later require public disclosure in order to satisfy Congress’s desire for a scapegoat? That’s unreasonable.
Putting oneself in the public forum does not justify death threats.
When Michelle was informed that they were receiving such threats and that her actions might have been contributing to the problem, she should have taken the names down.
—-
I’d be fine if her principle were merely that those who are not culpable should not be put before the public as if they were.
However, she includes the death threat info, which implies that it somehow informs her opinion. She clearly does not care that much about death threats, otherwise she would have taken down the students’ names to mitigate the damage.
They were not contractually obligated to take the money. When the payments were made, they knew that the company was receiving large amounts of public money, and that its operations would probably be put under greater public scrutiny. It’s not unreasonable.
Calder v Bull was an appeal of the impacts of an ex post facto STATE law, not federal. They therein ruled that because the prohibition against abrogation of contracts would be covered in the broader restricion of all ex post facto laws, this could not have been an intentional redundancy and therefore the existence of contract law as a purely civil incarnate IMPLIED the criminal demarcation of ex post facto in section 10.
BUT
Article 9 holds no such restriction on Obligations of Contracts, and using the same logic is therefore NOT segregated as in article 10. I have heard more cogent analyses that the real distinction is between punitive and regulatory legislation, as opposed to the pure civil vs criminal, as this was the only way to reconcile the ruling of the majority in Calder with their stated summary of protecting civil property rights without a supercession of state over federal law. For example, this allows new laws for the registration of past sex offenders… decidedly criminal ex post facto, but decidedly regulatory rather than punitive.
In any case, such a judgement against bonus recipients under any new ex post facto taxation law would be decidedly 1) federal 2) punitive and 3) an interference in the Obligation of Contracts (relevent section or not).
Yes, Calder made a muck of things, but I’m entirely convinced that the situation is winable in a fair court. That said, I’m also convinced that plaintiffs suing to recompense their confiscated bonuses against the Fed’s army of infinitely funded lawyers would have better luck squeezing blood from stones than finding such a court.
MmmmMMmmmmMMm… they were contractually entitled to take the money with no further contractual obligation to have their identities made public spectacle of.
I understand where you’re coming from that it is reasonable to know scrutiny is coming, and for that reason many executives actually DID return some or all of their bonuses. But what is reasonable now, was NOT written in as an obligation of the contract then.
Recipients have no obligation to honor any change to contractually obligated conditions on their payment no matter how reasonable… whether it’s surviving a federal investigation, or merely saying “thank you.”
I wasn’t arguing that they have any additional obligations. I was merely arguing that when they accepted the money (not when they contracted), they could have reasonably expected public scrutiny. They made a choice to accept the money. Therefore, if your principle is that one should accept the (foreseeable) consequences of one’s actions, they should accept their names being revealed.
Like I said, I disagree with that principle.
I’m signing off for the night. It was an intriguing conversation.
I appreciate your perspective as well….
I think the point of contention here is merely what constitutes “should be reasonably expected.” I am convinced that public scrutiny IS a reasonable expectation of choosing to publicly publish one’s contact information. I am NOT convinced that public scrutiny is a reasonable expectation of collecting one’s paycheck from a private institution, and on that point we may just have to agree to disagree. The check CLEARING is a reasonable expectation
I guess we disagree that this was a foreseeable consequence, regardless of the timing. They stayed at AIG, in part, because of this payment. Given the condition of the economy (and the company), I would guess that many of them would have bailed out long ago and found employment elsewhere. Now Barney wants to punish them doubly for staying with a sinking ship.
I could see that, from their point of view, this was a deferred salary for the work they had done. Yes, it can be debated that many of them did a terrible job, but we really don’t have a complete view of all the facts and who was responsible. We do know that several members of the committee grilling Liddy are partially responsible as well, which is sadly hypocritical.
Let’s also not forget that some of these executives did not have anything to do with the branch of AIG that was responsible for the mess. There’s also likely going to be some gray areas of involvement. Should those executives also suffer the wrath of Barney?
There’s a difference between the AG getting these names (although, I still don’t see the point as no crime was committed) and Congress using these names in order to redirect American angst over the bailouts.
No good purpose can come from Frank’s knowing specific names. It certainly doesn’t help change the economy. So much of this mess could have been avoided if Barney Frank was never in office. Wasn’t AIG a major underwriter for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac?
Good night.
I guess I should not write so much since we’re both hitting the same points.
Bawney Fwank: Put a sock in it!
Yeah, and here’s one you can use:
I don’t like the precident it sets.
For example, private insurance companies process Medicare claims. They pay their employees bonuses based on production, quality, etc.
If congress decides, on a whim, that an insurance company doesn’t pay enough claims, but they’ve met all their stated contractual obligations do people think the government should go after the people who got bonuses? Congress seems to want the government to have the ability to abrogate pre-existing contracts between individuals or individuals and corporations.
Can anyone really say this is a good idea?
There is one way this can happen, namely bankruptcy. Congress decided that AIG was too big for that to happen.
Liberalese to English: disagrees with bluesoc’s view.
Piano wire for the few, camps for the many?
—
Keep the change-I’ll keep my guns
Well it seems our worse fears have come true with electing obama . We have members of congress in essence making threats against A CEO and AIG employees, we have a President telling wounded vets no more medical care, we have the speaker of the house pimping herself to illegal aliens in SF telling them that they are good CITIZENS for breaking our laws. Chris Dodd outright lying to us,barney frank being barney frank ( which should be a capital crime ) and now they are telling us that this whole bonus pile of steaming fecial matter is at least in part due to the fact they didn’t bother to read the stimulus bill before they passed it * sigh* maybe it is time to start over
It is official: this freakin’ country has lost its mind! Since when is threatening AIG executives tolerated by the likes of such holier-than-thou cretins as Barnie Frank?
It was very telling today when Glenn Beck had Dr. Drew Pinsky on and Dr. Pinsky said: “America is now pre-revolutionary France.”
We’re in the grips of mob rule and hot heads who can’t regulate their emotions or their behavior.
Right back at ya, bluesoc… how’s that moral equivalency going? Get any useful tips from huggybear?
Let’s see, MM posted the names of UC Santa Cruz students who were organizing protests against military recruiters. Yet, you’re advocating that somehow she’s responsible for the death threats. Hmmm… you have no problem with villainizing the AIG executives, publishing their names, for what? Taking their contractual bonuses?
Yeah… I’m really seeing the connection.
You stay classy as always.
Yeah, I’m sure you were equally troubled by the way these radical freaks treated military recruiters at the UC Santa Cruz campus. I must have missed your “concern.”
So, I guess you’re now the ultimate decider of what Michelle can and cannot post. My oh my. Haggling for that new Obummer censorship police post, are we?
You’re nothing but political and unprincipled, like many of your liberal brethren, so nothing you say is of any consequence.
What it all boils down to is that the government should have kept it’s damn dirty hands off the markets in the first place. They can’t even manage themselves, much less our economy, and they have no business screwing with other people’s business.
Flippin libtards got me to cussing again. God forgive me.
Don’t be silly! I enjoy reading your very reasonable contributions, and would miss them.
HYPOCRITE ALERT!!!
She was reporting on what the Students Against War had already released publicly.
Way to be ignorant of the facts bluesoc
As much as I like reading the NY Post, they did something I consider stupid. Some idiot there published the names and home towns of three of the AIG rentention bonus recipients. Many may not like AIG, but that was incredibly irresponsible of the Post to do.
They can’t help it…that’s where the campaign cash comes from!
The Constitution? We dont have to show you no Constitution! We dont NEED no steenkeen Constitution!
“Mookie said:Here’s a question and there’s no sarcasm implied: Why don’t taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going?”
Hey Mookie, does that mean I have the right to know the names and addresses for everyone in my town on public assistance who has been taking my money for years?
I’m not offended by the AIG bonuses one bit. My understanding is these are retention bonuses. If that’s the case, and if these people fulfilled their part of the bargain, pay them. $160M is chump change in this situation. I’m much more offended by the destruction of the US that is being engineered by Obama, Pelosi & Reid.
RedPill, beat me to it!! Sen. McCarthy was rooting out commies in our government, and was vilified by the left for his heroic stance. Now, as you said, the commies are running the show. They’re coming for all of us.
kudafa, are you a product of the American school system? If so, this may explain why you have been brainwashed into believing “McCarthyism” is an evil thing. It wasn’t until I was an adult and learned to think for myself that I began to question and challenge all the conventional “wisdom” that had been shoved down my throat by the lefties running our country’s education system. Please do yourself a favor and research the HUAC and what exactly Sen. McCarthy was doing. You may be surprised and learn something.
Barney Frank should be executed with piano wire around his neck.
Surely neither they nor law enforcement will be persuaded that this is a death threat. After all, it isn’t one when the Dems stoke up anger against the employees of AIG
Did I read it right? Is the stock of AIG worth a whopping $1.62?