Chrysler Creditor’s Lawyer Claims White House Threatened His Client
Filed under: Barack Obama, Economy, Media, Obama Administration
Thomas Lauria, an attorney representing holdouts among Chrysler’s secured creditors, claimed during a radio interview that the White House had threatened one of his (now former) clients, Perella Weinberg Partners, if it didn’t accept the government’s offer: (From Hot Air)
Speaking to WJR, Thomas Lauria said that the White House called the bondholders “vultures” for insisting on their rights as senior creditors and told them that the Obama administration would use the White House press corps to attack them in the media. Corky Boyd has the transcript:
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.
Glenn Reynolds wonders how the White House press corps will feel about being used as an arm of the administration to beat its opposition into submission. My guess? Enchanted, with just a couple of exceptions.
With all due respect to Ed Morrissey, I would say that anyone who thinks the White House Press Corps can be wielded by the Obama administration has obviously not been watching the White House press briefings.
Despite recent arguments to the contrary by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ana Marie Cox, the current press corps does a fine job of challenging the administration’s messaging. The degree to which the messaging holds up is really not in our hands. I imagine that if we reported Lauria’s “poor me” version of events, we would get a pretty cold reception from our audience.
As far as the “threat” Lauria alleges, it sounds an awful lot like someone told his client that public opinion would not likely be favorable to people who would obstruct a fair deal to save Chrysler. That’s not a threat, it is a reality. It’s no more a “threat” than John McCain’s campaign promise to make earmarkers “famous.”
Lauria is basically engaging in an overheated closing argument, twisting and omitting facts as he sees fit, and reporting an unsourced paraphrase. I imagine my lawyer friend would level many objections, including “Assumes facts not in evidence.”
For a more thorough look at the legal aspects of Lauria’s claims, from the “threat” to “abuse of power,” check out Cubic Politics. Although I’m not a lawyer, Lauria appears to conflate the administration’s representation of the taxpayer with “abuse of power.” Sounds more like they’re doing too good a job for the “vultures’” lawyer’s taste.
Tommy on: Daily Dose:
Did you love this post?
Then please share it!
