&gt; <i>they might not have been engaging in illegal activities purely for profit.</i><p>I think the obvious interpretation is that Citigroup was politically connected enough (through lobbyists, personal connections, campaign donations, etc.) to pull strings in government and use taxpayer money to reduce their exposure. This would be mutually beneficial for the actors involved through the typical mechanisms of revolving door politics. It would seem almost delusional to me to think that those typical motives wouldn&#x27;t have been present in this case. The article even points out using populist anger about bonuses as a negotiating tool against AIG.<p>While sections of the article, particularly near the end, certainly seem in need of an editor (&quot;just to fuck with us,&quot; &quot;the passage of time ... great for the wealthy&quot;), I don&#x27;t see that discrediting any of the information presented. Most seems to come from Greenberg&#x27;s lawsuit + known history.<p>This stuff really makes me wish Lessig had gotten more traction with his Mayday PAC and presidential run.