Desipio Message Board

Quote from: morpheus on May 01, 2009, 07:46:50 AM
JournoList, anyone?

http://www.google.com/search?q=rice+nixon&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF_en

It's quite impressive how quickly and widely the theme of the day gets spread.

Quote from: morpheus on May 01, 2009, 07:46:50 AM
JournoList, anyone?

http://www.google.com/search?q=rice+nixon&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF_en

It's quite impressive how quickly and widely the theme of the day gets spread.

Quote from: Condi"By definition," she repeated, "if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture."

Quote from: Tricky Dick"When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

QuoteLauria: 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.

Quote from: morpheus on May 04, 2009, 07:59:02 AM
Whether or not you support the general idea of the government backstopping Chrysler, I hope we can all agree this is a bad idea.  This is an interview by Frank Beckman (who?  some talk radio dude out of Detroit) with Tom Lauria, a bankruptcy attorney who represents some of the creditors of Chrysler.

http://www.760wjr.com/Article.asp?id=1301727&spid=6525

Starting at the 1:30 mark (emphasis mine):

QuoteLauria: 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.

Quote from: Tank on May 04, 2009, 08:36:39 AM

Quote from: morpheus on May 04, 2009, 07:59:02 AM
Whether or not you support the general idea of the government backstopping Chrysler, I hope we can all agree this is a bad idea.  This is an interview by Frank Beckman (who?  some talk radio dude out of Detroit) with Tom Lauria, a bankruptcy attorney who represents some of the creditors of Chrysler.

http://www.760wjr.com/Article.asp?id=1301727&spid=6525

Starting at the 1:30 mark (emphasis mine):

QuoteLauria: 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.

FWIW (and both the White House and Perella Weinberg have every reason to deny this), both the White House and Perella Weinberg deny this...

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/white-house-perella-weinberg-deny-claims-of-threat-to-firm/

QuoteI'm told that some of you people actually follow non-baseball news. Not sure why you'd do that, but I guess it takes all kinds. Anyway, for those that care, among the names on President Obama's short list to fill Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court is Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. If she's picked, I'm assuming that there will be a moderate amount of scrutiny of her judicial record, her philosophy, her political views and all of that stuff, but for our purposes, you should know that she's the judge who, on March 30, 1995, issued the preliminary injunction against Major League Baseball preventing the owners from unilaterally implementing a new Collective Bargaining Agreement and using replacement players, effectively ending the 1994 baseball strike.

Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2009, 10:05:32 AM
Update on THAT WHOLE BANKRUPTCY THING: 

http://aroundthesphere.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/everybody-open-your-hymnals-to-section-363/

There are some very interesting legal issues here, with arguments from both sides included in the summary.  The Fifth Amendment argument that Lauria is using (with Brandeis cited as precedent) I find pretty compelling, but let's see how it plays out.

QuoteWhat did you expect would happen when you invite the government into your company?

Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2009, 03:56:15 PM
This story isn't going away...

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-allegations-of-white-house-threats-over-chysler-2009-5

Quote from: Tank on May 05, 2009, 05:18:04 PM

Quote from: morpheus on May 05, 2009, 03:56:15 PM
This story isn't going away...

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-allegations-of-white-house-threats-over-chysler-2009-5

They don't seem to care to specify the nature of the threats they're claiming were made. At least not there.

Is this about threatening to sic the IRS or SEC on them?

Or, is this just a matter of threats to their public reputations by telling the world that the administration thinks these guys are on the wrong side of the issue, making plain that their interests are at the expense of the workers and their pensions and thus sullying these creditors' reputations in the public eye?

The former (which was suggested in "this (as yet unproven) yarn"... where they also take the opportunity to call the administration "fascist" and all but call Rahm a ballet-loving fag for good measure) would be undeniably awful and, I have to figure, quite illegal.

The latter, on the other hand, sounds more like hardball PR than anything else: we will make you famous, the American people will know your names.

Depending on the specifics it could well be ugly PR hardball, but hardly fascism.