White House Threatens Chrysler Non-Tarp Investment Companies (UPDATED)

It’s the Chicago Way or the highway, now in Washington.

Newsbusters notices that the MSM has thus far,  studiously avoided this chilling exchange that took place on Frank Beckman’s Show, this morning:

What follows is a rush transcription, omitting the intro and wrap-up niceties, of an interview today between WJR’s Frank Beckmann and Tom Lauria, attorney for most of (at the moment) Chrysler’s non-TARP creditors (audio is here; NYT link in transcript added by me):

Beckmann: So what’s the matter with your vulture clients who are so greedy and selfish. Why won’t they go along with this?

Lauria: Well, they bought a contract that says that they get paid before anyone else does by Chrysler. And they have been told by the government who is in complete control of Chrysler, oddly enough, that despite their contractual right, they do not get paid before everyone else.

So they are standing on their rights, standing on the law, trying to defend in effect what is the Constitution of the United States, to make sure that they get what they’re entitled to for their investors.

Beckmann: Tom, let me make the argument against you in another way. We’ve heard the President say this, “I wouldn’t want to stand on their side.” Ron Gettelfinger says “Everyone else has made concessions. These people won’t; they’re greedy.” Why not take a concession that is being asked of everybody else and is being accepted by everybody else, including other hedge funds that had bought some of these bonds in Chrysler?

Lauria: Well that’s a great question, because let me tell you it’s no fund standing on this side of the fence opposing the President of the United States. In fact, let me just say, people have asked me who I represent, and that’s a moving target.

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.

Beckmann: Was that Perella Weinberg?

Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.

Beckmann: All right.

You can read the rest of the interview, and/or listen to the audio at Newsbusters.

Again, anybody who was paying attention during the election season, could have predicted that such thug-like tactics would be employed by the white House.

We could have predicted that it would be ignored by the MSM, too.

More (via Lucianne) on Chrysler’s rogue creditors, here.

First comment at Lucianne’s:

Let these investment companies know they have the support of the American people. The big three are Oppenheimer Funds 1.800.CALL.OPP (1.800.225.5677), Perrella Weinberg Partners(212.287.3200) and Stairway Capital (Phone: 516.629.3478. Fax: 516.629.3481.)

Sounds like it’s too late for Perrella Weinberg Partners.

I wonder if Obama’s dirt digging dept. is up and running.


Ed Morrissey wants to know how the White House Press Corps feels about being used as Obama’s attack dogs.



Jake Tapper:

White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm’s Reputation

You believe that?

Me neither.

UPDATE (5/5):

Charges of White House Threats to Persecute Chrysler Creditors Corroborated

Ace has all the latest.

This story may have legs:  more here, and here.

2006 Video: Obama On Supreme Court Nominees

According to Obama, some wrong headed rubes think that “a President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not whether the Justice is intellectually capable and is nice to his wife etc etc…”

But Obama knows better:

Video Via Naked Emperor News.

What with Justice Souter’s recent announcement that he’s retiring, and Obama’s top three contenders to replace him being far lefties, I was counting on Republicans to examine his eventual nominee’s  philosophy, ideology and record. I trust the Republicans will not be shy in  bringing any troubling concerns to the public’s attention. I’m delighted that Obama approves.

Border Patrol Agents Told Not To Wear Protective Masks

But, I’m sure hand-washing is encouraged:

Jim Hoft notes that DHS is refuting reports that it told agents at US airports and checkpoints they couldn’t wear face masks to protect themselves.

Who do you believe, Janet Napolitano or the reporter, the union rep, and the 80 employees who want to wear the masks, but were told they can’t ?

When it comes to Janet Napolitano’s DHS, this is a pattern we should all get used to:

1. Outrageous policy decision

2. Huge public outcry

3. Dissembling.

You can bank on it.