• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

ChryslerGate: Extortion

Mike

Well-known member
By Dan Scott

Last week on WJR radio Frank Beckmann conducted an interview of Tom Lauria, a bankruptcy lawyer who represents some of the bondholders who loaned money Chrysler. During the course of that interview Mr. Lauria dropped a bombshell that implicated the Whitehouse in an extortion plot against a bondholder potentially involving almost a billion dollars amounting to fraud.

The threat that amounts to extortion:
“I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House, and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.”

Let’s be clear what extortion is: Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either unlawfully obtains money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution through coercion or intimidation or threatens a person, entity, or institution with physical or reputational harm unless he or she is paid money or property. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense.

One must wonder how many more Chrysler bondholders were similarly threatened? And what about the GM bondholders, were they threatened, how many of them and by whom? The possibility more than one bondholder was threatened creates another set of crimes called Conspiracy to commit fraud. What the country is potentially faced with is a RICO case involving Enterprise Corruption over the Chrysler and GM attempts to avoid bankruptcy filings. By the way, it should be known these bondholders represent mutual funds whose investors are people like you and me, IRA and 401k accounts. The financial fraud being committed is not to be discounted as against some rich people who won’t be missing one of their many little piles of cash; it is against the average working stiff who diligently sacrificed for years to have a retirement.

Unfortunately, it comes as no surprise the FBI or SEC are not investigating a potential extortion threat or fraud when it comes to the Whitehouse’s actions. During the last four months they have essentially sat on their hands while President Obama and his minions at the Whitehouse have broken one law after another under the guise of political expediency to save the nation. One must wonder if they are simply clueless as the Keystone Cops or have been told not to investigate potentially politically damaging actions. This seems to be behavior of most Law Enforcement these days. Let’s compare this behavior to within the last few years (2007) when Senator Larry Craig stuck his hand under a bathroom stall, or when (2006) Senator Foley made some untoward comments in emails to a 17 year old page or recently when (2008) Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was prosecuted for some work at his house by a generous campaign contributor. All of those seem to have one thing in common, an R behind their title. Yet when faced with serious multiple felonies, the people involved with a D behind their title the FBI doesn’t bat an eyelash.

The Whitehouse when confronted with the accusation of making threats engaged in denials. “The charge is completely untrue,” said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, “and there’s obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way.” Interesting response wouldn’t you say? There is no evidence that this happened? As though an event never happened if it wasn’t documented in triplicate? Mr. Burton, knows better, first hand testimony IS evidence and it does exist in this case, namely the person who received the threat, Perella Weinberg. Be watchful for staffers being reassigned out of the Whitehouse as anyone in the know with material information will to sent off elsewhere to hid the “evidence” of who knew what and who did it. The cover up of wrongdoing has already started with this denial.

During the course of a conversation with Tom Blumer at Bizzyblog.com how this might be Obama’s Watergate moment, he made the comment, “As an event in and of itself, Watergate had little significance. The cover-up did.” I was rather dumbfounded at the time, however after digesting his observation, it unlocked an even greater truth in shades of Richard Nixon. While most conservatives intuitively recognize the bias in the media and it’s cooperation with the Democrats in general, there is even a greater issue. So people at the FBI, pay close attention since you clearly have been dropping the ball lately I will spell it out for you. Let me draw your attention back to the original quote and repeat these words for your interest: “…under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation…” Now was it an empty threat that the Whitehouse would have the press corps destroy the reputation of Mr. Weinberg’s investors if he didn’t comply with their demands that he allow 71% of his investment (they were told to accept only 29 cents on the dollar) to be taken from him? If the threat weren’t empty, how would the Whitehouse get the press corps to destroy him? Would that be through the press corps weakness to be easily influenced to chase after any juicy story like throwing a steak for a dog to run after or would that be a concerted collective effort by the editors and producers of the MSM to walk in lock step with the Obama Administration?

Given the MSM almost universally (save Fox News) has refused to cover this juicy story of a Whitehouse extortion plot against a Chrysler bondholder one is left with the impression that the MSM has collectively decided not to publicize it. Why would they not cover a story that is explosive and thereby boost their flagging ratings? Why the incuriosity? One would expect reporters falling all over themselves trying to interview every GM and Chrysler bondholder for the scoop of the decade. Let me underline this discontinuity of behavior by the MSM for you at the FBI. In the last few years, literally tens of thousands of journalists have lost their jobs in both the print and media. Revenues are severely down, ratings are dropping like a stone and likewise circulation, a number of MSM companies are under a deathwatch. Under these severe economic circumstances what editor or producer would turn away a juicy story, which would bring in badly needed revenue? On the surface no sane person would hold back or hesitate, however, a group might not be inclined to do so if there were a promise of greater monetary reward for agreeing to spin only a positive light on the Obama Administration.

The refusal of the MSM to question even shaky false assertions by President Obama is part of the positive only spin they are engaged. Consider the failure of the MSM to challenge President Obama on an obviously false premise when he stated: Wall Street is not going to play as dominant a role in the economy as regulations reduce “some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking that had become so common,” as though Wall Street were the sole source of the problem when we know it was the supercharging of the CRA under the Clinton Administration that was the source of the housing bubble via legally mandated unsound lending practices and he Barack Obama was the lawyer for ACORN that forced Citibank to make those unsound loans. It was government’s and Barack Obama’s interventions in the market place that caused the mortgage meltdown.

What are the facts? We know Rahm Emanuel has daily conference calls with point people in the MSM. We know that the news industry in general is suffering heavy financial losses. There have been calls for government to subsidize, that is use taxpayer funds to float various newspapers such as in Connecticut. There is a drumbeat by the MSM to get itself on the taxpayer dole like GM, Chrysler and the banks. The greater issue is that the MSM collectively has entered into an agreement with the Obama Administration to “Pay for Play” for a taxpayer bailout in some form, whether that be through loaned funds, government contracts or outright cash payments. The transfer of funds isn’t happening yet, however, it will. The question is will the FBI even investigate and follow up on the leads? You at the FBI were interested in Governor Blagojevich’s Pay for Play, regarding Obama’s former senate seat, why not President Obama himself?
 

jigs

Well-known member
they know they pissed in thier cheerios, and now they are ashamed to admit it....

Ombam is a frigging crook. plain and simple. I just hope there is a nation left to lead after the bastard is removed from office.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
It's just Chicago-style politics from a Chicago politician. Why would anybody expect anything different?
Obviously you haven't been paying attention, Sandhusker. Obama is a different kind of politician. He's not like all the rest of them who just promise people what they want to hear. President Obama offers "HOPE." He offers "CHANGE." He offers "TRANSPARENCY." Or maybe....?

Maybe he only offers Obamunism? Wake up neokoms.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
And again libs turn a blind eye. What's Kola's tagline again? Something about sinning by silence?

Here ya go for her tagline!!!!

_________________
Abraham Lincoln once said, "To sin by silence when one should protest makes cowards out of men."


Just watch, Hopalong will post after every post I make.

PLEASE NOTE:
** I DO NOT SPELL CK MY POSTS, so don't bi-atch about it **
 

Mike

Well-known member
On Wall Street: Chrysler saga sets dangerous precedent
By Francesco Guerrera

Published: May 1 2009 20:15 | Last updated: May 1 2009 20:15

Il fine giustifica i mezzi. (The end justifies the means.) Thus wrote Niccolò Machiavelli, the grandaddy of all political consiglieri, in instructing his prince on how to seize and retain power.

It is unclear whether Barack Obama, the US president, heeded this timeless advice in deciding Chrysler’s fate this week.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
US car sales dive as problems mount - May-01Rome salutes Fiat deal with Chrysler - May-01Suppliers hit as vice tightens on Chrysler - May-01John Gapper: In defence of the Chrysler hedge funds - May-01In depth: Detroit in distress - Nov-30GM bondholders’ group pressed on restructuring - May-02But if Mr Obama hasn’t read it yet, Sergio Marchionne, the Italian-born head of Fiat and Chrysler’s boss-to-be, should send him a copy of The Prince. Bank executives and investors should also skim the book as they could be in for some Chrysler-like treatment soon.

Regardless of its literary influences, the Obama administration’s decision to give unions a big stake in the ailing Chrysler while strong-arming banks into forgiving a huge portion of debt is a sign of the times.

A nearly bust carmaker, several lenders that owe the government billions of dollars (and, in some cases, their survival) and an interventionist president eager to be seen to be tackling the nation’s economic ills: welcome to the United States of America 2009.

I have heard the arguments supporting the decision to short-change debt holders and carve out Chrysler between the unions (which get 55 per cent but just one board seat), Fiat (up to 35 per cent and three board seats) and the government (most of the rest of the equity and four board seats).

They boil down to this: extraordinary times require extraordinary measures (the end justifies the means, if you like).

In other words, with Chrysler employing more than 50,000 people in the US and Canada, it was paramount to avoid a long bankruptcy that would have destroyed the company.

If that meant giving junior creditors such as the unions favourable treatment at the expense of senior debt-holders, so be it. As for those hedge funds that rejected the plan, they are nothing but “speculators” according to Mr Obama.

As a fellow basketball fan, the president will not mind if I call a time out. There are several problems with the logic of the Chrysler “rescue”.

First of all, it did not stave off bankruptcy. Chrysler duly filed for Chapter 11 on Thursday.

Mr Obama said it would be a “surgical”, quick in-and-out, process but that will be up to the court, not him.

More importantly, the Chrysler saga sets a dangerous precedent for US capital markets. For once, the law is unambiguous: senior secured creditors should be paid before junior unsecured creditors and employees (the words “senior” and “junior” are a bit of a give-away on this point). By turning legal wisdom on its head – and vilifying investors that opposed the move – the administration is signalling the principle is no longer sacred.

While that, in itself, will not cause a massive capital flight away from the US, it will have some serious repercussions.

Fund managers and hedge funds are already reluctant to participate in the authorities’ plans to rid banks of toxic assets for fear of government retribution on pay. The Chrysler “cram-down” of lenders is hardly going to fill them with confidence.

After this week’s completion of “stress tests”, holders of preferred securities in some banks will be asked to exchange them into equity to recapitalise those cash-strapped institutions. How can they be sure the terms will be fair?

And how safe will senior debt holders in, say, Citigroup or Bank of America, feel after what happened to their Chrysler counterparts?

The government has a real problem here. Call it the “paradox of the official bailer-outer”: the authorities’ position as rescuer-in-chief forces them to take an active role in the private sector, yet their goals (saving jobs, getting re-elected etc) conflict with the smooth running of the very markets they are trying to preserve.

Mr Obama’s task has been complicated by the pre-crisis growth of the “shadow banking system”: hedge funds and other lenders whose aims and strategies are opaque and often conflict with those of larger banks.

But the rulers of the world’s largest economy ought to avoid short-term fixes that undermine the long-term strength of its capital markets.

No end justifies the end of the rule of financial law.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
 

jigs

Well-known member
it is obvious the liberal turds are picking thier battles...they want to debate the "blame it on Bush" topics...not the reality issues.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
jigs said:
it is obvious the liberal turds are picking thier battles...they want to debate the "blame it on Bush" topics...not the reality issues.

Guess someone should post a new thread about Palin's daughter so we can get some movement on the site! :roll:
 

Texan

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Guess someone should post a new thread about Palin's daughter so we can get some movement on the site! :roll:
Or post something about Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or some other entertainer. That will give them some REAL 'issue' to discuss.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Texan said:
aplusmnt said:
Guess someone should post a new thread about Palin's daughter so we can get some movement on the site! :roll:
Or post something about Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or some other entertainer. That will give them some REAL 'issue' to discuss.

Or maybe some "CrackHo" in Georgia that burned her house and blamed it on the Right Wing against Zer0, while she attended the Inauguration............ which she really didn't? :lol:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Still no response from the left? I guess this is how they want business to be done by their administration?
Yep, just more "backslapping" of their "chosen champion." :lol:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
If you interpret their silence it is just an admission, they just can not say the words that they were wrong on the chosen one.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
jigs said:
it is obvious the liberal turds are picking thier battles...they want to debate the "blame it on Bush" topics...not the reality issues.

Guess someone should post a new thread about Palin's daughter so we can get some movement on the site! :roll:

Aww had to bring up your crush again. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
 
Top