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

[Patranus]

Solyndra Inc.'s chief executive officer and chief financial officer will invoke their 5th Amendment rights and not answer questions during a Friday hearing before a House investigative committee, their attorneys said.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mon...ifth-amendment-wont-testify-before-house.html

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

 

[Sinsear]

Thanks Obama

 

[soundforbjt]

Interesting stuff here:

Although Solyndra’s biggest private investor was a venture capital fund affiliated with Kaiser, its second largest investor was a fund linked to the Walton family, of Wal-Mart renown, a major donor to Republicans. Kaiser has denied he ever spoke to the Obama administration about the Solyndra loan.
The chief executive of Solyndra, Brian Harrison, is a registered Republican, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/09/solyndra-.html

 

[Patranus]

Interesting stuff here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/09/solyndra-.html

Apparently you don't understand how private equity funds work.

 

[xBiffx]

Interesting stuff here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/09/solyndra-.html

Your point?

What Republicans and Democrats do with their money is their business. What elected officials do with our money is our business.

Solyndragate headlines in the future.

 

[woolfe9999]

Your point?

What Republicans and Democrats do with their money is their business. What elected officials do with our money is our business.

Solyndragate headlines in the future.

You're right about that, but the point is that the government wasn't the only one who thought Solyndra was a solid investment, for whatever reasons. And this business with the Solyndra execs taking the Fifth suggests that they may be guilty of defrauding their investors - which includes the taxpayers- by supplying inaccurate financial information.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ahhh the new talking points.

Buuuuuuush also invested government money in Solyndra

 

[Howard]

Shouldn't everyone take the 5th anyway?

 

[Fern]

The govt loan renegotiation to subordinating it to $75B of investor money looks highly suspect, and many say illegal.

But the execs cannot testify before Congress under penalty of perjury. They are the subject of a criminal investigation. They'd be incredibly stupid to do that. No surpirse they take the 5th, their lawyers will insist.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

You're right about that, but the point is that the government wasn't the only one who thought Solyndra was a solid investment, for whatever reasons. And this business with the Solyndra execs taking the Fifth suggests that they may be guilty of defrauding their investors - which includes the taxpayers- by supplying inaccurate financial information.

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.

 

[sactoking]

Shouldn't everyone take the 5th anyway?

I think the problem with exercising your 5th Amendment rights is that if you do so without a legitimate reason you appear guilty. Jurors and Grand Jurors are human and while an exercise of a 5th Amendment right is not supposed to be seen negatively the reality is that many people consider it an admission of guilt.

 

[Craig234]

I think the problem with exercising your 5th Amendment rights is that if you do so without a legitimate reason you appear guilty. Jurors and Grand Jurors are human and while an exercise of a 5th Amendment right is not supposed to be seen negatively the reality is that many people consider it an admission of guilt.

Evidence of that?

 

[sactoking]

Evidence of that?

Go find pretty much any case where the defendant invoked the 5th. What do they all have in common? The defense attorney always has to remind jurors that exercising 5th Amendment rights is not an admission of guilt. Why do they do that? Because people generally believe that only those who are guilty "hide behind" the 5th.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2004_07_12/2004_07_09_Zajac_ExBishop.htm
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ick-scott-invoking-fifth-amendment-imply-gui/
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jul/31/local/me-8749

And so on.

 

[Craig234]

Go find pretty much any case where the defendant invoked the 5th. What do they all have in common? The defense attorney always has to remind jurors that exercising 5th Amendment rights is not an admission of guilt. Why do they do that? Because people generally believe that only those who are guilty "hide behind" the 5th.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2004_07_12/2004_07_09_Zajac_ExBishop.htm
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ick-scott-invoking-fifth-amendment-imply-gui/
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jul/31/local/me-8749

And so on.

OK, and evidence that after the attorney explains that, they don't follow it?

 

[Fern]

The three links he provided prove his assertion.

Fern

 

[sactoking]

OK, and evidence that after the attorney explains that, they don't follow it?

It is unknown, that's rather the whole point of why attorneys tell clients not to take the 5th unless they have to. In order for it to be known a juror would have to admit openly that they completely ignored the court's instruction which could lead to a retrial.

In other words, you're trying to bait me into arguing the existence of black swans.

 

[Fern]

Jurors are irrelevant here. This is Congressional testimony. There are no jurors.

But the point stands that claiming the 5th makes one look guilty. As this news hits the TV and newspapers, many will jump to that conclusion. It's bad 'optics'.

Fern

 

[halik]

The govt loan renegotiation to subjugate it to $75B of investor money looks highly suspect, and many say illegal.

But the execs cannot testify before Congress under penalty of perjury. They are the subject of a criminal investigation. They'd be incredibly stupid to do that. No surpirse they take the 5th, their lawyers will insist.

Fern

This. IIRC the law requires the DoE loans to remain senior to all other claims.

 

[sactoking]

The govt loan renegotiation to subjugate it to $75B of investor money looks highly suspect, and many say illegal.

But the execs cannot testify before Congress under penalty of perjury. They are the subject of a criminal investigation. They'd be incredibly stupid to do that. No surpirse they take the 5th, their lawyers will insist.

Fern

Just a point of order; I think you meant "subordinate" and not "subjugate". To subordinate a debt is to voluntarily move back in line, typically to facilitate some sort of refinance mechanism.

 

[Fern]

Just a point of order; I think you meant "subordinate" and not "subjugate". To subordinate a debt is to voluntarily move back in line, typically to facilitate some sort of refinance mechanism.

Yes. Thanks.



Fern

 

[Darwin333]

I think the problem with exercising your 5th Amendment rights is that if you do so without a legitimate reason you appear guilty. Jurors and Grand Jurors are human and while an exercise of a 5th Amendment right is not supposed to be seen negatively the reality is that many people consider it an admission of guilt.

If you knew the legitimate reason wouldn't that negate the need to plead the fifth?

And it sure as hell is better to look guilty and go free than to look innocent and be found guilty.

 

[dmcowen674]

No surpirse they take the 5th, their lawyers will insist.

Fern

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.

 

[bfdd]

It doesn't matter who the fuck did what. It matters why they did the stupid fucking shit in the first place. They were warned it was a junk loan and this would happen and holy shit they actually got something right for once! Reasons for investment need to be investigated, if it's solely to push the green initiative and this is failing us, we need to come down very very hard on our politicians and leaders who have been pushing the green on us driving us deeper into the hole.

 

[sactoking]

If you knew the legitimate reason wouldn't that negate the need to plead the fifth?

And it sure as hell is better to look guilty and go free than to look innocent and be found guilty.

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.

 

[bfdd]

Also, only an idiot wouldn't plead the 5th. Why say or do anything that others could potentially manipulate to use against you? let them figure it out or fuck off.