Slightly less subtle than what was implied in yesterday’s Times piece. There is now an allegation from a very brave attorney that Obama actually threatened Perella Weinberg with unleashing upon them the wrath of the White House press corps if they refused to comply with his wishes.
Attorney Thomas Lauria: Let me tell you it’s no fun 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. 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 the 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.
Beckman: Was that Perella Weinberg?
Lauria: That was Perella Weinberg.
Here’s the shocking response from the White House:
The White House said the story was false.
“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.”
Of course there isn’t any evidence. Obama’s no amateur at this game.
Isn’t Lauria’s testimony enough evidence to warrant investigation by journalists? Nah. Didn’t think so.
UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin blogging this topic today, 5/4.
Subscribe to Jane’s daily email.
Subscribe to Jane Q. by RSS Feed
9 Comments
May 3, 2009 at 6:38 am
How is this not extortion? Or, as others describe it, Tuesday in Chicago.
May 3, 2009 at 10:30 am
This guy (Obama) gets away with anything, doesn’t he? And the press corps would gleefully go after anybody he points to and says “get ‘em” because they are worthless, leg-tingling, myrmidons. It is extremely frightening to me when the so called press is so completely on the side of this very dangerous, power-seeking President.
May 3, 2009 at 2:13 pm
The White House says there’s “no evidence”- note that’s not a denial. Hitler was careful to only give verbal orders, too.
It’s plenty clear- Obama KNOWS he owns the press corps… and even treats them with arrogant contempt, ie- hectoring reporters to “not waste their question”, telling them when they’ve “got enough pictures”, and even to “get back on the bus” in Chicago- ouch.
This out-of-control narcissist wouldn’t call on Fox News after the TEA parties, and skipped the NYT at his presser a couple days after their reporter asked Obama if he was a “socialist”. Since when is a refusal to answer legitimate questions and explain your actions to the American people acceptable in a US president?
Obama has no use for The Contstitution, law, religion, ethics, or anything else that gets in his way- The idea that he’d sick his MSM sycophants on some bank that isn’t willing to do as he says doesn’t surprise me one iota.
May 3, 2009 at 2:42 pm
This is a tempest in a small, cracked Republican teapot. I notice that the blog that started this “thuggery” accusation has now stopped allowing comments. It based its accusation on the words of an interested party — Perella Whineberg’s lawyer — without ever noting the party’s interest, and without ever even bothering to examine how bankruptcy law is structured and applied.
The issue here is Perella Whineberg’s desire to be paid 50 cents on the dollar for its bonds, rather than 29 cents on the dollar offered by the Treasury. The reason Treasury is involved is because Chrysler can’t obtain private “debtor in possession” financing for its bankruptcy. Treasury is playing that role, and he who provides DIP financing always has a big role in bankruptcy proceedings.
Virtually every bankruptcy features some fighting among creditors over pieces of a pie that, by definition, isn’t big enough to give everyone a full slice. The biggest fights are often between different classes of creditors, and in those fights you will often see “senior” creditors howling over not being paid as much as they think they deserve relative to “junior” creditors.
That was the case here. In addition to Perella Whineberg, two other senior creditors (Oppenheimer and Stairstep) were so-called “holdouts” from a settlement agreed to be scores of other creditors. In bankruptcies, holdouts usually don’t do very well. The judge sometimes tosses them an extra crust of bread, but not always.
As the DIP financing provider, the Treasury wants Chrysler to remain an ongoing entity. Its interest is to produce agreement among the creditors so there won’t be a prolonged court fight that might endanger the entity’s ability to repay the DIP financing. So, it wants to corral the holdouts.
Perella Whineberg was corralled last Friday; it issued a press release to that effect. But it also trotted out its lawyer to claim that the White House had forced it into agreement by threatening to ruin the firm’s reputation. The White House categorically denied that version, something that the blog you quoted never mentioned before abruptly closing its comment section on Sunday morning.
We don’t know what was said by the White House to Perella Whineberg. It’s unlikely that anyone threatened Whineberg with the White House press corps, but it’s not beyond imagining that the White House pointed to President Obama’s statements and told Whineberg that they were only the beginning of what they’d face if the holdouts continued to hold out and jeopardized the ongoing operations of Chrysler. After all, the taxpayers are now on the hook for $4 billion in DIP financing, and it’s the government’s job to protect that investment against greedy graspers like Whineberg.
In any case, the idea that “the rule of law” was ignored is outrageous. The Chrysler bankruptcy, and the recent machinations, is par for the course. Perella Whineberg was trying to get a better deal, and failed. What really sticks out here is Perella Whineberg’s utter lack of class and professionalism. They are the personification of the kind of sore losers and manipulative squirrels that the Republican Party has become.
May 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Interesting comment coming from someone who refuses to refer to Perella Weinberg by their proper name, substituting it with a juvenile homophone.
All you have proven here is that you are heartily in favor of the Obama White House exercising its power to extort a desired response from private entities. I suspect your cutesy name calling would have been directed at the president had this story arisen during the Bush years.
Your comment reminds me of someone…
What do you think, Snaggle?
May 3, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I see no reason to think it is the same guy. The nasty name bending is pretty universal on the net. The deification of Obama and worship of all that he does is part of all leftie’s DNA. The same goes for him seeing all corporations as evil and worthy of punishment. Probably just your garden variety angry lefty.
Personally I think that what is going on here is Obama paying back the union for campaign contributions on the taxpayers dime. I think that Obama lacks understanding of the essential nature of for respect for contracts and property rights to the maintenance of civil freedom. I also think that Obama does not understand that the bondholders accepted much smaller returns in exchange for security. By blowing off this deal the message Obama send is that it is not safe to invest in American companies as long as he is president. This will further dry up the credit market and increase bankruptcies and unemployment. Obama is sticking it to American workers and investors to pay off his own private debt.
May 4, 2009 at 7:52 am
Oops! This story has been discredited! Nice work Jane!
May 4, 2009 at 9:49 am
Discredited because the White House denies it? Is that the same White House that is run by the guys that used to take care of Blago’s unicorns? Yeah, you can take that to the bank.
May 4, 2009 at 10:07 am
Thanks, Leo/Claire/TrustNobody.
By the way, have you considered therapy for your Multiple Personality Disorder?