4 ms·
It’s worth noting that the interviewer didn’t start out planning for a debate about members of Congress working in fields related to their congressional activit
by fwlr 4y ago
It’s worth noting that the interviewer didn’t start out planning for a debate about members of Congress working in fields related to their congressional activity. The original plan was to pin the subject for his hypocrisy in trying to weaken his own legislation once he got hired by a bank. The subject was ready, though - the first thing he said was:
“I came to the conclusion shortly after we passed the bill that fifty billion dollars was too low. I decided that by 2012, and, in fact, said it publicly. The reason I say that is that I didn’t go on the board of Signature until later. In fact, I had never heard of Signature Bank at the time when I began to advocate raising the limit. This is relevant, obviously, because Signature was a beneficiary of that.”
- TechBro8615 4y agoThat's because the interviewer is an activist, not a journalist, and a bad one at that. Barney Frank was simply the more intelligent person in this interview. The fact he had such an answer prepared shows he has thought about it over the years, far longer than the reporter spent thinking about a gotcha question based on the superficial premise of "revolving door bad." As for the reporter, the interview doesn't start any better than it ends. Those are some embarrassing questions based on factually incorrect premises, and Frank consistently corrects him, only to be told "well, look what the Washington Post said in 2018!" How embarrassing. I admire Frank's patience. Can you imagine a reporter childishly grilling you about your subject of expertise while insisting you're wrong?