'This Week' Transcript: Former President Bill Clinton

So this is going to happen again. And as George says, there's got to be a bill out there that makes it very clear to the private sector that only their -- their directors, their shareholders, their investors are going to be the ones that pay this, and they're not going to get additional payments, they're not going to get -- they're going to be liquidated and gone.

TAPPER: The $50 billion fund would be not funded by the taxpayers. It would be funded by the big banks. But, Al, do you want to respond to...

HUNT: Yes, I would disagree with Ms. Strassel on this, but I'm amused by Mitch McConnell being this great anti-Wall Street populist. He was just up shaking the Wall Street money trees last week.

You know, Mitch McConnell as an anti-Wall Street populist is about as credible as, what, John Edwards heading a family values conference. I mean, this is a guy who's voted with Wall Street every step of the way. This is just a Frank Luntz memo talking point.

I think there's probably problems with this bill. George, I think every government is going to -- is going to -- is going to bail out certain types of entities if they fail, if they threaten the economy. You shouldn't announce it. You shouldn't say it. You shouldn't set those parameters so it's clear they're going -- it's like a ransom policy. Every government has a ransom policy, but you don't announce it up front and say, "Here's our ransom fund," because that encourages bad behavior.

I don't think this bill totally addresses some of the complaints. I think it goes at least in some direction, however, Jake. And I'll tell you, at 10 o'clock on Friday morning, I thought the odds were about 60 percent or 70 percent this bill would pass. I don't think the politics are with the Republicans. This is not like health care. By 11 o'clock on Saturday morning, the odds went up to about 90 percent, because when the SEC brought that fraud suit against Goldman, I think that was the clincher.

TAPPER: Let's talk about the Goldman suit. First of all, I think we need to explain a little bit about it. The basic point is that the Securities and Exchange Commission has brought a suit against Goldman Sachs, and, Al, walk us through exactly -- there was -- there -- there is a guy -- there is a guy named Fabrice Tourre, right? Well, first of all, we start off...

HUNT: He's 28 years old.

TAPPER: We start off with a guy named John Paulson. He wants to bet against the housing industry in 2007. So...

HUNT: Right, and he put together -- Mr. Paulson had Goldman put together this -- this entity. It was called Abacus, I believe, which had a bunch of exotic instruments in them, which Mr. Paulson was convinced were going to go south and he could make a lot of money by betting against them. And Mr. Tourre, this 28-year-old Goldman trader, was involved in putting this together.

They then sold them to other Goldman clients, so the Goldman clients are betting that they were going to go up, and the Goldman clients lost $1 billion...

(CROSSTALK)

Page
Join the Discussion
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
You Might Also Like...