• Commissioner Georgiou,
    Thanks for joining us here. Darrell Issa is moving towards a congressional investigation of the FCIC, out of a bizarre search for corruption. While I don’t know what he will find, he is fair to raise the question of whether or not the FCIC was a useful expenditure of congressional monies. With that in mind, how do you respond to these comments by Mike Konczal on your colleague in the minority, Peter Wallison:

    This report is exactly what he believed in 2009. Think about this. We paid this guy at a level IV of the Executive Schedule, which is a juicy six-figure salary, for the days he worked. He had a staff, subpoena power, researchers, documents, access, interviewers. And he ultimately had a responsibility to be an investigator. And his final product is a handful of AEI white papers from 2009 stapled together. If there is new evidence from his investigations I didn’t see it on the first pass. He could have not been on the FCIC, we could have put in a conservative who was serious about getting to the bottom of what’s broken with our financial system, and Wallison could have written the same exact thing on his own.

    Do you think Wallison’s demagoguery is worthy of congressional scrutiny? What would have a more serious conservative conclusion to your investigations have looked like?

    Thanks,
    Matt Browner Hamlin