Carl Levin

Did Mr. Paulson or Paulson & Company come in wanting to go short?

We are going to stand adjourned for 10 minutes because we have a vote on.

I think it is a very clear conflict of interest and I think we have got to deal with it.

I do have a problem with taking a short position on a security that you are selling to your customer.

The percentage of contribution to the firm-wide VaR was shown in that exhibit at 53.8 percent for mortgage structured products, is that correct?

Well, all year, they were over your permanent limit. They were hugely over it.

This is much more than a market maker. You are keeping a proprietary interest in a position that is exactly the opposite of what you are selling.

And where you take a short position, do you think that should be disclosed? Where you are betting against that same security you are selling--yes or no, do you think that ought to be disclosed or not?

What do you think about selling securities which your own people think are crap? Does that bother you?

Do you think they know that you think something is a piece of crap when you sell it to them and then bet against it?

We have to do a better job of striking the balance between what an informed client believes is important to his or her investing goals and what the public believes is overly complex and risky.

Your clients' interests always come first, and they don't.

My problem comes particularly where you are selling a security to someone... and at the same time, you are betting against it.

I would have hoped you would have said you were appalled as your first reaction.

Half of those items in the portfolio were suggestions that came from Paulson. Is that correct?

We are going to pass a bill before we find everything, and that is somewhat concerning to me.

This week the Senate is trying to consider major financial reform legislation that could have profound effects on our economy.

This is net short. This is all synthetics across the Mortgage Department, is that correct?

Didn't you make a decision in December 2006 to basically head in a different direction? You were much too long and you wanted to go short. Is that not true?

I am not asking you now about the net. I am asking you about your short positions. You had a significant short position, significant and consistently in 2007, is that true?

Most honest observers would acknowledge that the roads of responsibilities lead to places like Washington and Congress as well as Wall Street.

Boy that Timberwolf was one shi**y deal.

They thought you were actually holding the equity, which is being on the long side, right?

If we can understand this piece of the puzzle, we will be in a much better position to craft responsible legislation.

Should Goldman Sachs be trying to sell a shi**y deal?