Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Death to the "Speculators", thanks to Obama comments

I love this guy

President Barack Obama called the holdouts "speculators" who hoped for a better deal from the U.S. taxpayer, and Michigan lawmakers threatened to pull state business from them.

Tom Lauria, an attorney at White & Case who represents an ad-hoc group of the dissenting secured lenders, told the court that publicly identified group members had received death threats "which they perceive as being bona fide." Sound familiar? Remember those unfortunate AIG souls who received bonuses for doing their job? I detect a disturbing pattern here.

As a result, the group may seek to disclose its membership to the court under seal, Lauria said. Lenders who received death threats have notified police and the FBI, he said.

The first-lien lenders were owed a collective $6.9 billion, and four large banks led by JPMorgan Chase & Co that controlled about 70 percent of the debt had approved a plan to take $2 billion cash.

A group of investment funds led by Oppenheimer Funds and Stairway Capital had objected to the payout terms as unfair (See "Something smells in Italy" post) and filed an immediate objection on Monday asking Gonzalez to block the Fiat deal and the government's offer to provide bankruptcy financing to Chrysler. JPMorgan lawyer Peter Pantaleo, of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, told the court Chrysler had 90 percent of the debt agreed, more than enough to support the sale.

The $2 billion payout would amount to about 29 cents on the dollar, but a liquidation analysis prepared by an adviser to Chrysler suggested the payout could be as little as 9 cents on the dollar if the automaker were forced to liquidate.


Mike West said...

OK, I'm a bit confused but see if this is right. BO's administration is pressuring Chrysler's creditors to take the government bailout deal rather than negotiate their own deal through bankruptcy court. Is that correct? And why are they applying so much pressure? So the government can have control of the auto industry too. Correct?

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

You broke the code. Toss in some huge favors the Obama Administration owes the UAW and you've got the big picture.

Reaganite Republican Resistance said...

Obama thinks he's Tony Soprano now-

The White House says there’s “no evidence”- note that Hitler was careful to only give verbal orders, too... and Obama's not new to this sort of thing.

It’s plenty clear what really happened- Obama knows he owns the press corps… and he now even treats them with arrogant contempt, like children- hectoring reporters to “not waste their question”, telling them when they’ve “got enough pictures”, and even to “get back on the bus” in - ouch.

He wouldn’t call on Fox News after the TEA parties, and skipped the NYT at his presser a couple days after a 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?

Like most narcissists, Obama has no use for The Contstitution, law, religion, ethics, or anything else that gets in his way-

The idea that he’d sic his MSM sycophants on some bank that isn’t willing to do as he says doesn’t surprise me one iota.

Obama's completely out-of-control. But what did anyone expect with a neutered press, compliant congress, and cabinet full of sycophants?


vwatt said...

Life is good...looks like Obama has things under control...universal healthcare coming later this year and also a new "progressive" Supreme Court Justice. Think I'll just put my feet up, enjoy the ride, and watch the rightwing nutjobs eat their young! :

By Dana Milbank, Wash. Post
Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Maybe Barack Obama really is The One.

And on the 105th Day . . .

Yesterday's news was good -- almost supernaturally so.

The economy? Recovering.

The markets? Rallying.

Swine flu? Abating.

Drought? Ending.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declared his confidence that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are well secured. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee declared his confidence that a massive health-care overhaul will be accomplished this year. Warren Buffett declared his confidence that the economy is "out of the quicksand." And the Supreme Court was confident enough about the state of the nation to turn its attention to Janet Jackson's breasts.

Call it good policy, as Democrats do, or beginner's luck, as the last remaining Republicans do, but you can practically hear the nation collectively exhaling.

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

"Yesterday's news was good - almost supernaturally so." Wow! That is so typical of the slobbering blather coming from the left wing media. It makes me want to puke.

Economy - Recovering? I suppose so, if you ignore the 600,000 jobs lost last month, the nationalization of the banking and auto industries, and the tripling of the deficit.

Markets - Rallying? From WHAT? Where they were in January?

Swine Flu - Abating? What did the Obama Administration have to do with that other than having Biden scare the hell out of everyone?

Drought - Ending? What drought? Where? And what did Obama have to do with that? Oh that's right. The messiah thing.

As far as universal health care goes, has anyone asked the Brits or Canadiens what they think of it? And why people come from all over the world to be treated by our present worthless health care system?

Souter was no loss to the conservative cause. It's going to be fun watching Sessions (once again, good riddance to Specter) rip into the left leaning activist Obama appoints to the Court. Whoever gets the appointment will eventually get approved (provided they paid their taxes), but I guarantee, it won't be pretty.

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

One other question, if the Taliban takes over Pakistan (not likely, I know) how secure would the Pakistani nuclear arsenal be? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was merely echoing what his boss said in the press conference. What else could he do and keep his job?

vwatt said...

You're right-I am going to immensely enjoy watching Sen.Sessions(Al) "perform" on the judiciary committee during confirmation hearings-esp. if Obama's nominee is a minority and or a woman. He has got to be one of the most down-home stupidest senators we have have ever had in the Senate, along with his "troubled past" as a "good ole boy":

Sessions Subordinate: I Thought I'd Be Fired If I Objected To Being Called 'Boy'
By Brian Beutler and Eric Kleefeld - May 7, 2009, 4:05PM

When it became clear that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) was poised to become ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, we recalled this 2002 article by Sarah Wildman which addresses some of the controversies that kept Sessions from being confirmed in 1986 as a U.S. District Court judge in Alabama.

Wildman writes in particular that the testimonies of two witnesses--a Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, and a black Sessions subordinate named Thomas Figures--helped to doom Sessions, then a U.S. Attorney, at his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings. According to Wildman, Hebert testified reluctantly "that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." And Figures--then an assistant U.S. Attorney--told the committee that "during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he 'used to think they [the Klan] 'WERE OK' until he found out some of them were 'pot smokers.'"

Today we obtained a copy of the transcript of the Sessions hearings--over 500-pages worth--and it turns out there's quite a bit more. We're still going through it, of course, but the Figures testimony alone contains some damning details.

Figures recalled one occasion in which the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division sent them instructions to investigate a case that Sessions had tried to close: "We had a very spirited discussion regarding how the Hodge case should then be handled; in the course of that argument, Mr. Sessions threw the file on a table, and remarked, 'I wish I could decline on all of them.'"

All of them, according to Figures, meant civil rights cases generally. As he explained at one point: "[T]he statement, the manner in which it was delivered, the impression on his face, the manner in which his face blushed, I believe it represented a hostility to investigating and pursuing those types of matters."

Figures said that Sessions had called him "boy" on a number of occasions, and had cautioned him to be careful what he said to "white folks. "Mr. Sessions admonished me to 'be careful what you say to white folks,'" Figures testified. "Had Mr. Sessions merely urged me to be careful what I said to 'folks,' that admonition would have been quite reasonable. But that was not the language that he used."

In response to these allegations, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) asked him if he'd ever objected to this behavior. Senator "Did you ever say anything to them? Did you ever say, knock it off, or quit it?"

Figures admitted he hadn't: "Senator, I felt that if I had said anything or reacted in a manner in which I thought appropriate, I would be fired. I always felt that my position was very tentative around Mr. Sessions."

At one point during his testimony, Figures paid Sessions a backhanded compliment on his overall professionalism. "In all fairness to Mr. Sessions, however, I should make clear that the problems which existed in the area of civil rights were not present in other aspects of my case assignments," said Figures. "Except in criminal civil rights cases, Mr. Sessions deferred to my recommendations regarding whether to pursue cases, and never withdrew a case assignment because he disagreed with my recommendation."

Thomas Figures still practices law in Mobile, Alabama, but could not be reached by phone this afternoon. We'll keep perusing the testimony and report any other noteworthy details.

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

Yeah, he rates right up there with . . . let's see, Robert Byrd? And guess what? Sessions won't be the one under the gun. Just like Ted Kennedy's past is not brought up when he's grilling some Republican appointee. Wait. Did Sessions kill somebody? Or was it something much more serious like being politically incorrect?