The defenses cross examinations were surreal. It was certainly true that a few of case study solution governments cooperating witnesses had doubtful rsums, so it could have made sense to spotlight their usually duplicitous historical past of tax evasion or lying to investigators. But in their zeal, defense advice went far beyond simply discrediting case study solution witnesses, spending an inordinate period of time eliciting much more details about case study answer gruesome corruption scheme their very own clients had taken part in. The result was a rare and a little complicated spectacle: high octane lawyers from Wall Street working to rip case study answer lid off Wall Street corruption in open court. Defense suggestions showed us, for example, how CDR personnel were automatically directed by their boss, David Rubin, to make political contributions to select applicants, only to be reimbursed by Rubin for those contributions afterward. This kind of corporate skirting of campaign finance limits is anything weve always suspected goes on, but we rarely get to see direct evidence of it.