@cfarivar Thank you! So the investigator is to try and get money back from losses?
-
-
En réponse à @ProfCritic
@ProfCritic@cfarivar It seems like a weirdly huge amount of money to spend on what the ebcitzen article is talking about.1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@sarahjeong@profcritic I honestly don't know all the details. The spending amount they're talking about is in the agenda for this week.1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @cfarivar
@cfarivar@profcritic Yeah, what McElhany is saying seems correct. This is just a really weird item.1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@sarahjeong@cfarivar This helped a bit: http://stopgoldmansachs.blogspot.com/p/oaklands-goldman-sachs-rate-swap.html …1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @ProfCritic
@ProfCritic@cfarivar Yeah. But still doesn't explain huge expenditure in agenda on "investigating"1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@sarahjeong@cfarivar Yes, definitely does not!1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @ProfCritic
@ProfCritic@sarahjeong I honestly don't know what "disbarrment" means in this context. That Oakland won't deal with Goldman anymore?1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @cfarivar
@cfarivar@ProfCritic Debarment. And that's what it looks like. Like divestment, but the other way around.1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@sarahjeong Ok, debarrment. Can't that just be done without spending $250k? Like just say Goldman has cooties or whatever?#oakmtg3 réponses 1 Retweet 0 j'aime
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.