Solyndra execs to take 5th, refuse to testify before House panel

[Greenman]

They can take the 5th all they want as long as they wind up in Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison.

I'm actually surprised these thieves did not flee the country and living in Monaco.

Shouldn't we go through the formality of a trial before we sentence them?

 

[woolfe9999]

You're going to lose your key to the lawyers' clubhouse - can't infer anything from them asserting their rights! LOL (Great point BTW, Fern, thanks!)

This looks bad on Obama since the Bush administration turned down their business model, so if Solyndra execs are found to have been cooking the books this makes Obama look less bad. Not that I suspect him/them of collusion, merely being more friendly to solar panel manufacturing than was Bush. (I may be wrong, considering that Bush has a very green home compared to Obama's - but then liberals are always more generous with other people's money - and Obama certainly talks up alternative energy.)

Personally I'm more concerned that a state of the art solar cell manufacturing facility can't make it in the USA than about Obama making the loan, so I'm hoping they do find malfeasance in the Solyndra management. That would mean that other, better-managed companies can still make it manufacturing solar cells here.

Yes a judge or jury can't make such inferences. As a member of the public, I can make any logical inferences I like.

I think this whole thing does look like a possible royal fuckup for Obama and his people, BTW. If the economy was overall healthy it wouldn't mean much. It isn't that huge in and of itself, but it's yet another political headache for him.

As for the company, this is an industry in relative infancy and lots of weaker players are going to get weeded out. I wouldn't be surprised if this has happened to some foreign solar companies as well and we just haven't heard about it.

What Obama home are we talking about BTW? The one on Pennsylvania avenue?

- wolf

 

[IGBT]

money laundering op for the obama. How much of the .535 billion was kicked back to his re election campaign??

 

[waggy]

anyone that does not take the 5th is being silly.

 

[werepossum]

Yes a judge or jury can't make such inferences. As a member of the public, I can make any logical inferences I like.

I think this whole thing does look like a possible royal fuckup for Obama and his people, BTW. If the economy was overall healthy it wouldn't mean much. It isn't that huge in and of itself, but it's yet another political headache for him.

As for the company, this is an industry in relative infancy and lots of weaker players are going to get weeded out. I wouldn't be surprised if this has happened to some foreign solar companies as well and we just haven't heard about it.

What Obama home are we talking about BTW? The one on Pennsylvania avenue?

- wolf

Agreed, and this is one case where it's probably in our interests for malfeasance to have occurred, since we have several other major solar panel manufacturers we'd like to not go tits up. And yes, it does look bad for Obama considering that Bush was proven right. I'm sure though their business model (both the one turned down and the one approved) didn't count on Chinese companies dumping panels so cheaply. And in any case it's probably an honest mistake; every project has pros and cons, and just as Obama probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq, Bush wouldn't be as easily convinced the Solyndra loan was a good idea. A lot of the decision process is the bias and preconception one brings to the table.

I was talking about the Obama/Rezko home in Chicago. Would be nice to have a big solar array (American made!) for the White House, but you can't make that kind of change when you're renting. LOL

 

[Patranus]

The thing is that this makes Obama look bad.
Any court case is somewhat irrelevant in the court of public opinion.

 

[Darwin333]

What I was trying to say was if there was a legitimate reason, like the Solyndra folks not testifying before Congress because they face criminal charges and anything they say to Congress can be used in the criminal trial, then "plead the 5th". If you just do it to do it without a very compelling reason, you tend to look guilty.

Think back several years to the baseball steroid inquiries. Remember the panel with Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and Rafael Palmiero? At that panel Bonds said "I never knowingly used steroids" and the feds tried to charge him with perjury.

But perhaps more infamous than that was McGwire's insistence that he "wasn't there to talk about the past." That seemed like a very odd thing to say, and he was vilified for it in the press and general public. Why would he do such a thing? Well, the Congressional panel asked him if he ever used steroids. He did not want to answer in the affirmative (indeed, he spent the better part of a decade trying to escape culpability for his cheating). He knew that if he said 'no' he would be perjuring himself. He (and his attorneys) also knew that if he openly claimed 5th Amendment protection before Congress, with no pending investigation or litigation, it would be the same as admitting guilt. So they crafted his non-answer answer which technically was not an admission, technically was not a denial, and technically was not a refusal to answer. It was their attempt at controlling the negative PR they knew would occur with an invocation of the 5th. Unfortunately for them the Congressional panel, the media, and the public saw right through their facade and branded him a cheater and guilty.

Oh, and 21 months ago McGwire confirmed everyone's belief and admitted to being a cheater.

So Mark basically pleaded the 5th by default and he probably would not have been able to answer as he did had without the 5th amendment (without it I assume they could force him to admit his steroid use or force him to commit perjury) . In the end Mark "looked" guilty but was not brought up on charges as far as I recall.

OTOH, Bonds did not plead the 5th (by actually saying it or simply answering with non-answers as you say) and was later brought up on charges.

As I stated earlier, it is absurdly better to look guilty and go free then to look innocent and be found guilty by a jury.

 

[werepossum]

The thing is that this makes Obama look bad.
Any court case is somewhat irrelevant in the court of public opinion.

But does it really matter? Anyone still supporting Obama today is either in for the duration, or really, really hates Republicans. (Okay, likely both.) They are the real deal, the hardcore left. Seems to me that even a tape of Obama telling the Solyndra execs he's going to give them half a billion even knowing they'll never pay it back won't really change his support at this point.

Besides, the shadier the Solyndra execs look, the better Obama's chances of looking like an innocent dupe. Otherwise it's just the natural consequences of being more supportive of alternative energy. You win some, you lose some. Probably about the same stimulus effect as, well, the stimulus (assuming the Solyndra execs weren't skimming off the top), and even more if someone else can pick up the new fab plant and actually run it at a profit.

Besides, practically all Congressional hearings are merely political theater.

 

[sactoking]

So Mark basically pleaded the 5th by default and he probably would not have been able to answer as he did had without the 5th amendment (without it I assume they could force him to admit his steroid use or force him to commit perjury) . In the end Mark "looked" guilty but was not brought up on charges as far as I recall.

OTOH, Bonds did not plead the 5th (by actually saying it or simply answering with non-answers as you say) and was later brought up on charges.

As I stated earlier, it is absurdly better to look guilty and go free then to look innocent and be found guilty by a jury.

Well, in that case Bonds wasn't in trouble because he didn't plead the 5th, he was in trouble because he lied. Ultimately he got indicted for tax avoision because the perjury charges never were solid.

The real decision, and that faced by the Solyndra people, isn't "Do I plead the 5th or commit perjury?" it is "Do I plead the 5th or tell the truth?" Testifying truthfully is always preferred to not testifying or to lying, which is why a refusal to testify is often presumed to mean that the person is guilty and doesn't want to admit it.

 

[Lithium381]

haha NEVER, EVER talk to the POPO

 

[1prophet]

haha NEVER, EVER talk to the POPO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

 

[Budmantom]

money laundering op for the obama. How much of the .535 billion was kicked back to his re election campaign??

I think that the simpler question is how much of it wasn't kicked back for the re-election campaign?

 

[Red Dawn]

But does it really matter? Anyone still supporting Obama today is either in for the duration, or really, really hates Republicans.

What's not to hate, they've shown themselves to be real assholes willing to do anything to defeat Obama even if it's bad for the country.

 

[werepossum]

What's not to hate, they've shown themselves to be real assholes willing to do anything to defeat Obama even if it's bad for the country.

And the Democrats are different how, exactly?

Pick your poison or vote Libertarian. (Whether or not the Libertarian Party is a lesser poison is debatable, but we can definitely say they won't be the poison that kills us.)

 

[Budmantom]

What's not to hate, they've shown themselves to be real assholes willing to do anything to defeat Obama even if it's bad for the country.

It appears that the monkey is posting for Red Dawn.

 

[airdata]

Take the fif !

 

[Fear No Evil]

It appears that the monkey is posting for Red Dawn.

No, its not a monkey. Red has a lot of free time on his hands because he refuses to go out and get a full time job like the rest of us. That gives him a lot of time to defend Obama and keep the checks rolling in. Why support candidates other than Obama who might be a threat to his current 'lifestyle' of sitting on AT and e-thugging?