@heckofajobbrownie said:

Turns out there's nothing to this Lew contract, and the WSJ had the story wrong.

I thought the Weil Commentary was particulate weak. Read it again. When you say things like "seems to me - might" et cetera it really means very little.

So was the Wall Street Journal wrong or was the Bloomberg interpretation wrong?

WSS

I agree, not a high crime, but more of the same of what goes on between Wall Street and Washington DC.

and while this stuff is nothing new, its just fun to point out the discrepancies of the beloved party when they are fond of using the same tactics..

Senator Warren is hopefully just the start of something different there IMO...

That being said I doubt Warren would go after 1 of her own but I just don't positively see a crime here, so far.

WSS

wishes for Lew and vote no? maybe form a coalition of sensible democrats and FINALLY do something right?

Citi Offered Jack Lew A Big Bonus To Secure A 'High-Level' Government Position

At Lew's recent confirmation hearing for Treasury Secretary, an interesting detail about his employment contract with Citi emerged: a bonus meant to keep him at Citi – meaning he wouldn't get it if he quit – would still be granted on the condition that he left the bank for a "high level" position in the federal government.

Bloomberg News columnist Jonathan Weil, who tracked down a copy of Lew's employment agreement, put it bluntly, writing, " The wording of the pay provisions made it seem, at least to me, as if Citigroup might have agreed to pay Lew some sort of a bounty to seek out, and be appointed to, such a position."

good for her but unfortunately she (us) are dealing with lawyers who have different interests like "higher penalties!" lol

and not necessarily the truth of trial.