Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy writing at National Review Online:
The Solyndra debacle is not just Obama-style crony socialism as usual. It is a criminal fraud. That is the theory that would be guiding any competent prosecutor’s office in the investigation of a scheme that cost victims — in this case, American taxpayers — a fortune. Fraud against the United States is one of the most serious felony offenses in the federal penal law. It is even more serious than another apparent Solyndra violation that has captured congressional attention: the Obama administration’s flouting of a statute designed to protect taxpayers.
|
Read the entire article--to my eyes a devastating prosecutorial outline of Obama administration malfeasance--and tell me: In knowingly squandering over half a billion dollars of taxpayer money on that modern-day unicorn, Green Jobs of the Future, did the president and his men create a more substantial threat to the Democrats than the torpid economy and looming uphill reelection campaign?
|
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: SolyndraGate?
The government's investment in green energy looks less and less like an investment, and more and more like a backdoor government backstop for the benefit of one or more private investors.
Sep '10
Re: SolyndraGate?
The only thing missing from this scandal is a third rate burglary.
Jan '11
Re: SolyndraGate?
George Savage:
Yes, if only because they've created a concrete example of malfeasance, and one which can't be blamed on anyone else.
Dec '10
Re: SolyndraGate?
It will just be swept under the rug. Nothing will come of it. The Media should be yelling bloody murder, but they're not, and won't start.
Edited on Sep 18, 2011 at 9:13pmOct '10
Re: SolyndraGate?
Agreed. One does find the the third rate theft desciption quite interesting.
The elected totaly lack any polish. The rest is said and done.
Feb '11
Re: SolyndraGate?
wilber forge
Agreed. One does find the the third rate theft desciption quite interesting.
The elected totaly lack any polish. The rest is said and done. · Sep 18 at 9:03pm
I tend to think this as well, but I think conservatives have finally learned the ropes of 'new media', so I'm not that sure. It all depends on how juicy the facts are that come out. Remember Weiner, ACORN? Ok, it ain't sexting or prostitutes but I think we should still get A. Breitbart on the case.
Feb '11
Re: SolyndraGate?
Oct '10
Re: SolyndraGate?
Antiphon
wilber forge
Agreed. One does find the the third rate theft desciption quite interesting.
The elected totaly lack any polish. The rest is said and done. · Sep 18 at 9:03pm
I tend to think this as well, but I think conservatives have finally learned the ropes of 'new media', so I'm not that sure. It all depends on how juicy the facts are that come out. Remember Weiner, ACORN? Ok, it ain't sexting or prostitutes but I think we should still get A. Breitbart on the case. · Sep 18 at 9:13pm
In short, there is old media and the new and the elected have lost the skill sets to appear as anything more than used car salesmen. That approach has proven more benifcial to holding office than accompishing meaningful goals.
Both sides of the aisle know the ropes and always have.
Re: SolyndraGate?
Yeah the WeinerGate fiasco and ACORN do set a precedent for the "new media" coming in and winning a few battles for us right-wing nutjobs.
But that's small time compared to this! This is the President!
PS: Call me old school but I'd say the "law" trumps both the "new media" and "old media." And I have absolutely no idea about that so I'll let the grown ups talk now.
Edited on Sep 18, 2011 at 9:45pmJan '11
Re: SolyndraGate?
Liberal sleaze.
That's what happens when you take off the safety clip, and bypass the warnings and signals, when trying to promote something that you just know is right/truth/justice/etc. The ultimate sleaze is to ignore the warnings because you're just certain about how noble it is.
Sep '11
Re: SolyndraGate?
I see this as a stretch--and trying to use this to bootstrap impeachment proceedings or anything of of the kind would be futile, at best.
Yes--if you have worked on Wall Street you can be expected to understand the rules regarding forward-looking statements. If you're a grandstanding politician (the president of the U.S., no less) I think the rules are a little less stringent. (Martha Stewart went to jail because she had worked on Wall Street, and was perfectly well aware that she was engaging in stock watering.)
To support an allegation of fraud I think somebody would have to find a smoking gun--shares in Solyndra in somebody's portfolio, or some other financial nexus. Otherwise, this just looks like really, really bad management--with the taint of crony capitalism--not criminal fraud.
I'm not a lawyer, and my time working on Wall Street predates Sarbanes-Oxley, let alone Dodd-Frank. Your mileage may vary.
Oct '10
Re: SolyndraGate?
Have an analogy that is simple and repugnantly clear. When the higher ups tell you to hold the end of a large pipe, there are one of two choices.
Short and not so sweet.
May '10
Re: SolyndraGate?
Anyone in a position to agree to put Govt. debt below any other HAS TO KNOW whether his decision is, or is not legal. This is why the Govt. employs legions of lawyers. We aren't talking about something that has simple personal/financial interest for the decision maker - there simply has to be something more to his & it is not pretty. It is corrupt.
I suspect there will be a special prosecutor assigned at Congressional insistence and the investigation will start from there - and drag on - and drag on - to the election and beyond. I can't figure out how someone does not go to jail on this. I doubt that, whoever that person is, he/she will go quietly into the night.
This would be entertaining if we were not facing more important, fiscally existential threats.
Jun '10
Re: SolyndraGate?
Steve MacDonald: Anyone in a position to agree to put Govt. debt below any other HAS TO KNOW whether his decision is, or is not legal. This is why the Govt. employs legions of lawyers. We aren't talking about something that has simple personal/financial interest for the decision maker - there simply has to be something more to his & it is not pretty. It is corrupt.
I suspect there will be a special prosecutor assigned at Congressional insistence and the investigation will start from there - and drag on - and drag on - to the election and beyond. I can't figure out how someone does not go to jail on this. I doubt that, whoever that person is, he/she will go quietly into the night.
This would be entertaining if we were not facing more important, fiscally existential threats. · Sep 19 at 1:52am
But you always have to prove criminal intent. That's why people think they can get away with this stuff. If the investigators can't prove criminal intent, they can't hurt you. The worst thing that'll happen (if there's no clear evidence) is that you look stupid. Stupid isn't criminal.
May '10
Re: SolyndraGate?
Welcome to the conversation, Ethan! (and pssst...don't tell anyone, but you ARE a grownup now. ;-D)
Some people on Ricochet are so knowledgeable it can be intimidating, but there are plenty of us who are still learning about the issues too. Our community has been greatly improved with the addition of thoughtful college-age young adults. Talk on!
Edited on Sep 19, 2011 at 5:54amSep '11
Re: SolyndraGate?
"I suspect there will be a special prosecutor assigned at Congressional insistence and the investigation will start from there - and drag on - and drag on - to the election and beyond. I can't figure out how someone does not go to jail on this. I doubt that, whoever that person is, he/she will go quietly into the night."
I seriously doubt you'll see a special prosecutor appointed by anybody, for anything, ever again. The Starr Investigation, and the Scooter Libbey affair, have demonstrated to both sides in Washington what happens when you unleash an independent entity with no rules, and no restraints, and continues to get paid extremely well until it decides to stop. And only that entity gets to decide when it stops.
Sep '10
Re: SolyndraGate?
Solyndra is a prime example of bureaucratic government malfeasance and unfortunately is not unique. Expect more out of the green jobs farce. However the article you referred to is less than reliable. It is difficult to seriously maintain that a company that publicly discloses it is probably going to go bankrupt prior to receiving public financing has committed fraud. Trying to pretend Obama is a Martha Stewart is absurd. I guess throwing red meat to the animals is what passes for professional journalism now days. The company did make use of some creative accounting to transfer assets which may prove problematic, but do not rise to the level of fraud. As far as venture capital investor’s r being given priority over taxpayers, this is SOP. Investors who make investments after public financing in start-ups are routinely given priority. If they were not hey would not invest. Similar arrangements were made during the ethanol boondoggle. Remember Bush’s switch-grass farce. The direct political connections are what stinks and will prove most troublesome.
Sep '11
Re: SolyndraGate?
"I can't figure out how someone does not go to jail on this. I doubt that, whoever that person is, he/she will go quietly into the night."
Re-read the original article. The Energy Policy Act is not a criminal statute--it is simply Congress's instructions to the Energy Department. Nobody is going to jail--nobody is going quietly into the night. Some bureaucrat made a judgment call to take a secondary position in the hopes that new investor money (put in by the principals) would keep the company afloat long enough for things to turn around.
The article is inflammatory--but nobody's getting prosecuted, nobody's getting fired, nobody's even going to get their blood pressure elevated.
Feb '11
Re: SolyndraGate?
Oct '10
Re: SolyndraGate?
All of the above conversation has one simple bottom line; big and powerful government attracts corruption at a logarithmic growth rate. America can only be saved by dramatically cutting the size of government. I cannot find it within myself to be so naive as to believe that politicians will ever let that happen.
Only the complete collapse of the feral government can do that, and then, hopefully, we can display the character of the American people who built this country the first time, and do it again.