5 ms·

Yellen is not out of politics and also no, why would that be a problem? We often pay bills after recieving service. Quite normal.

slg 6y ago
>Yellen is not out of politics and also no, why would that be a problem? She was when she made those speaking fees. Do you know she planned to reenter politics? Did Reagan or Bill Clinton have plans to reenter politics after their presidencies? >We often pay bills after recieving service. Quite normal. Except we agree to those bills beforehand. This would require that these payments be guaranteed years before they are made. Often times the leadership of these companies changes so that expands the list of people who need to be involved in this conspiracy. When the number of people involved in a conspiracy go up, the likelihood of that conspiracy being revealed goes up. Once again I will ask is there any evidence for this conspiracy beyond these circumstantial connections?
- guerrilla 6y ago
  > Except we agree to those bills beforehand. I'm sure those who paid them did too. > When the number of people involved in a conspiracy go up, the likelihood of that conspiracy being revealed goes up. And when they're all involved, nobody is left to care, investigate or prosecute. > Once again I will ask is there any evidence for this conspiracy beyond these circumstantial connections? The evidence is everywhere. They do favors for specific people and groups and get paid by those people and groups. It's really not complicated.
  - slg 6y ago
    > And when they're all involved, nobody is left to care, investigate or prosecute So everyone in government is in on this conspiracy? >The evidence is everywhere. They do favors for specific people and groups and get paid by those people and groups. It's really not complicated. That is circumstantial evidence. Is there any evidence that doesn’t equate to tying yarn on a cork board?
    - totalZero 6y ago
      You're asking for something extraordinary. The only direct evidence you could possibly have would be video or testimony of Ken Griffin or Janet Yellen admitting that the high fees are related to a quid-pro-quo that goes beyond speaking. But circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and a preponderance of it should play a role in your judgment. Some people work at Citadel for years after graduating from top colleges without making $700k in total income, yet Citadel shelled out that amount over the course of two years for a bunch of speeches from an altogether boring economist. Janet Yellen is a laughably bad speaker. See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YAEHJvNscs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YAEHJvNscs Now she's the Treasury Secretary and she has power and authority to manage a situation that directly affects Citadel. They make money off Robinhood. They back Melvin. And they benefit from a regulatory environment that is all too forgiving to market-makers.
      - slg 6y ago
        We aren't just talking about Yellen here. Three other people have been directly named. You can expand that list to a much wider category of politicians. What evidence is there that the post-politics speaking circuit is an avenue for bribery that doesn't amount to the equivalent "well it is obvious"? There would be thousands of people involved in this over the years. Has any former participant spoken out about it? Has anyone been caught in the act? People like Yellen are not paid for their oratory skill (and oratory skill is not something that is particularly valuable in her current or previous roles). They are paid because they are smart, accomplished, respected, and well known. When an organization has them come speak, people want to come listen and it lends the hosting organization prestige.
        totalZero 6y ago
        We are talking about Yellen here because unlike Bill Clinton or whomever, she's the one in a position of power and she's the one "summoning regulators to discuss" Melvin (a hedge fund backed by Citadel) and Robinhood (whose number one PFOF client is Citadel). The regulations currently protect market-makers like Citadel from having to adhere to many of the rules that other market participants have to follow. This includes the locate requirement of Reg SHO, as well as the buy-in procedure for failure to deliver. How are we supposed to trust Yellen to regulate one of her own biggest customers (maybe the biggest)? It's an absolute joke to pay Yellen six figures to give a speech, and that's why people are thinking, "wait a sec, this is bribery right?" Are you suggesting that Yellen should get paid because she is "smart, accomplished, respected, and well known"? The impropriety of these lavish payments comes from the fact that she's a cabinet secretary expected to keep these very firms in line. FINRA doesn't let vendors give their individual clients gifts of more than a hundred dollars per year. Yet the current TREASURY SECRETARY raked in $7mm in the past two years for giving bad speeches and somehow we're supposed to just be cool with that? Give me a break. She shouldn't be involved with this.

slg 6y ago

>Yellen is not out of politics and also no, why would that be a problem? She was when she made those speaking fees. Do you know she planned to reenter politics? Did Reagan or Bill Clinton have plans to reenter politics after their presidencies? >We often pay bills after recieving service. Quite normal. Except we agree to those bills beforehand. This would require that these payments be guaranteed years before they are made. Often times the leadership of these companies changes so that expands the list of people who need to be involved in this conspiracy. When the number of people involved in a conspiracy go up, the likelihood of that conspiracy being revealed goes up. Once again I will ask is there any evidence for this conspiracy beyond these circumstantial connections?

guerrilla 6y ago
> Except we agree to those bills beforehand. I'm sure those who paid them did too. > When the number of people involved in a conspiracy go up, the likelihood of that conspiracy being revealed goes up. And when they're all involved, nobody is left to care, investigate or prosecute. > Once again I will ask is there any evidence for this conspiracy beyond these circumstantial connections? The evidence is everywhere. They do favors for specific people and groups and get paid by those people and groups. It's really not complicated.
- slg 6y ago
  > And when they're all involved, nobody is left to care, investigate or prosecute So everyone in government is in on this conspiracy? >The evidence is everywhere. They do favors for specific people and groups and get paid by those people and groups. It's really not complicated. That is circumstantial evidence. Is there any evidence that doesn’t equate to tying yarn on a cork board?
  - totalZero 6y ago
    You're asking for something extraordinary. The only direct evidence you could possibly have would be video or testimony of Ken Griffin or Janet Yellen admitting that the high fees are related to a quid-pro-quo that goes beyond speaking. But circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and a preponderance of it should play a role in your judgment. Some people work at Citadel for years after graduating from top colleges without making $700k in total income, yet Citadel shelled out that amount over the course of two years for a bunch of speeches from an altogether boring economist. Janet Yellen is a laughably bad speaker. See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YAEHJvNscs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YAEHJvNscs Now she's the Treasury Secretary and she has power and authority to manage a situation that directly affects Citadel. They make money off Robinhood. They back Melvin. And they benefit from a regulatory environment that is all too forgiving to market-makers.
    - slg 6y ago
      We aren't just talking about Yellen here. Three other people have been directly named. You can expand that list to a much wider category of politicians. What evidence is there that the post-politics speaking circuit is an avenue for bribery that doesn't amount to the equivalent "well it is obvious"? There would be thousands of people involved in this over the years. Has any former participant spoken out about it? Has anyone been caught in the act? People like Yellen are not paid for their oratory skill (and oratory skill is not something that is particularly valuable in her current or previous roles). They are paid because they are smart, accomplished, respected, and well known. When an organization has them come speak, people want to come listen and it lends the hosting organization prestige.
      - totalZero 6y ago
        We are talking about Yellen here because unlike Bill Clinton or whomever, she's the one in a position of power and she's the one "summoning regulators to discuss" Melvin (a hedge fund backed by Citadel) and Robinhood (whose number one PFOF client is Citadel). The regulations currently protect market-makers like Citadel from having to adhere to many of the rules that other market participants have to follow. This includes the locate requirement of Reg SHO, as well as the buy-in procedure for failure to deliver. How are we supposed to trust Yellen to regulate one of her own biggest customers (maybe the biggest)? It's an absolute joke to pay Yellen six figures to give a speech, and that's why people are thinking, "wait a sec, this is bribery right?" Are you suggesting that Yellen should get paid because she is "smart, accomplished, respected, and well known"? The impropriety of these lavish payments comes from the fact that she's a cabinet secretary expected to keep these very firms in line. FINRA doesn't let vendors give their individual clients gifts of more than a hundred dollars per year. Yet the current TREASURY SECRETARY raked in $7mm in the past two years for giving bad speeches and somehow we're supposed to just be cool with that? Give me a break. She shouldn't be involved with this.