I haven't yet reviewed the transcript, but I do recall her questioning Stern about a worst case scenario for the conservator, where the record establishes that they uniformly believed that fannie mae was going to be profitable but did what they did anyhow. She asks whether that would be contrary to acting as a conservator. Stern says they can do that and still act like a conservator without explaining why that's the case (quite a bold statement!), but then goes on to explain why the hypo is problematic, focusing on that instead. Millet doesn't come back and challenge or seek clarification on what Stern said yes to the hypo before he changed the subject. When i was listening, that led me to believe that she was questioning to see how he'd respond and that the lack of a follow-up, if anything, indicates it wasn't a line of questioning that she felt committed to. But you know how it is, reading tea leaves....