Corporate Revenge or Simple Error?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Thanks for your comments Agador Spartacus. The rebuttal I received did not contain information on her other accounts so I'm not sure what you're referring to there... and I didn't mean to appear I was choosing sides on the matter, just that I doubt Chase would purposely reveal her personal info.

Kimberly Palmer of 10:57PM April 28, 2008

Didn't they have to talk about her overall credit rating to explain why they raised her interest rates? It seems unfair to blame them for simply responding to her accusations.

Ted of MD 6:32PM April 26, 2008

Didn't they have to talk about her overall credit rating to explain why they raised her interest rates? It seems unfair to blame them for simply responding to her accusations.

Ted of MD 6:31PM April 26, 2008

The "rebuttal" that Chase peddled to reporters included information about other accounts than the ones held by Chase, talked about Susan's credit rating, and other details not covered by the waiver that she signed.
Chase had also said they would not be submitting any testimony, so Susan was not given the opportunity to rebut the rebuttal in her testimony. Now she has to defend herself in the press because Chase chose to attack her in the press rather than sticking to Congressional testimony.
You rightly mention the serious error that Chase made in revealing personal account details to Congressional staffers, but that's only one part of the story. What was not an error, and was clearly calculated, was Chase's attempt to undermine the process and smear Susan in the court of public opinion. And that you gloss over like it's no big deal. But it's a big deal.

Agador Spartacus of CO 11:50AM April 26, 2008