White House threatened to destroy banks reputation?

[Superman]

Troubling if true...

Where did this report come from?

 

[StorminNorman]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/bankruptcy-atto.html

- Should have provided the link in the OP.

 

[moraldeficiency]

I have to question the intelligence of anyone who thinks this (if true) is a laughing matter. This is as much an abuse of power as anything Bush did.

I have to question anyone (but I'll just question your logic and objectivity rather than your intelligence) that takes the unverified word of a lawyer with nothing to lose as being anything approaching truth.

But yeah it is funny, these banks don't have a reputation for anything other than being jokes at the moment, their reputation couldn't be worse if the press corps spent the next ten years trashing them. He should have come up with a better and more believable lie.

 

[StorminNorman]

If it's not credible, then it's a non-issue. That goes without saying. That's not the point. The point is that if this IS true, it's a serious scandal.

While the integrity of the attorney can certainly be questioned - so can the integrity of the Obama White House.

 

[moraldeficiency]

And if aliens are really amongst us waiting for the right moment to take over and anally probe us all to death, then it would be wise to invest in steel plated ass guards, but I'd list the probability of that slightly above a lawyer telling the truth.

If we're gonna label every unfounded rumor as worthy of debate without a shred of corraboration we'll be here the next fifty years just on the first week of obama's term.

This rumor assumes:

1. the lawyer's telling the truth
2. obama's team would threaten someone for no actual good reason
3. they would treaten to smear the name of a group without a good public standing currently

that's a bit more than I can swallow, I'll stick with issues that might be true.

 

[Superman]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/bankruptcy-atto.html

- Should have provided the link in the OP.

Thank you.

 

[StorminNorman]

Why? Can you provide any evidence that the lawyer has a history of telling half truths? You act as if this story sounds completely out of the realm of reality...the idea of Obama threatening people with his political clout isn't new at all.

"[I am] the only thing between you and the pitchforks" - Obama.

 

[Superman]

And if aliens are really amongst us waiting for the right moment to take over and anally probe us all to death, then it would be wise to invest in steel plated ass guards, but I'd list the probability of that slightly above a lawyer telling the truth.

If we're gonna label every unfounded rumor as worthy of debate without a shred of corraboration we'll be here the next fifty years just on the first week of obama's term.

This rumor assumes:

1. the lawyer's telling the truth
2. obama's team would threaten someone for no actual good reason
3. they would treaten to smear the name of a group without a good public standing currently

that's a bit more than I can swallow, I'll stick with issues that might be true.

Nice.

 

[moraldeficiency]

No, but why not threaten something that would be effective? Banks reputations are **** right now, of all the things you could threaten the man with you pick the one area they can't get any worse about? You know that makes no sense, you threaten an investigation or something with the IRS, that's what would make sense and scare the guy.

He's a lawyer, bending truth is the job. Painter's paint, by the way.

He is the only thing between them and the pitchforks. If all these corrupt horrific buisnessmen that don't know how to do their ****ing jobs to save their lives were lynched tomorrow, I'd honestly be more concerned about the playoffs. But you were quoting obama stating a fact and trying to get these asshats to stop taking our bailout tax money and using it for ****ing vacations. It's their own incompetance mixed with greed, sloth and stupidity that has them on this line, not obama's press corps.

 

[StorminNorman]

This rumor assumes:

1. the lawyer's telling the truth

Correct. Though that's a basis for any rumor.

2. obama's team would threaten someone for no actual good reason

No good reason? Explain how trying to remove a road block is no reason?

3. they would treaten to smear the name of a group without a good public standing currently

It's easier to kick a sick dog than it is a fighting dog.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Correct. Though that's a basis for any rumor.

The word of one guy against everyone else involved. Really? Without the faintest shred of proof or any indication there ever could be any. Do you believe crazy bums on the street when they talk to jesus too?

Rumors are more credible when the person saying the rumor is someone without any benefit from the rumor. This is the opposite of even a slightly credible rumor. The guy might as well have said, "Obama threatened to carpet bomb my company if I didn't comply". It's that farfetched.

No good reason? Explain how trying to remove a road block is no reason?

Because there isn't a road block. This is a buisness that went bankrupt cause they were a crappy buisness. How are you defending them on this? I thought you were a capitalist? These guys are worse (and more costly to you and me) then all the welfare scammers put together. Call me crazy but I believe in rewarding hard work and excellence, but when a buisness fails from greed, sloth and stupidity I can muster no sympathy for them.

It's easier to kick a sick dog than it is a fighting dog.

But this is more like the government injected that sick dog with a flu strain. It just doesn't make sense. You threaten someone with things they fear. Their reputation is crap already, smearing that wouldn't do dick. Isn't that fairly obvious? If they said something like "I'll have federal investigators go over your dealings and tax records on the hunt for any malfiesance" that would be a threat I might find believable not "I'll devote my press corps to making your reputation marginally worse".

 

[VampElvis]

I would like to thank the many of you who have pointed out that I can now justifiably question the veracity of every and all statements made by Barack Obama, lawyer, POTUS.

Again, I thank you

 

[StorminNorman]

The word of one guy against everyone else involved. Really? Without the faintest shred of proof or any indication there ever could be any. Do you believe crazy bums on the street when they talk to jesus too?

Rumors are more credible when the person saying the rumor is someone without any benefit from the rumor. This is the opposite of even a slightly credible rumor. The guy might as well have said, "Obama threatened to carpet bomb my company if I didn't comply". It's that farfetched.

We disagree, obviously, on the farfetchness.

Because there isn't a road block. This is a buisness that went bankrupt cause they were a crappy buisness. How are you defending them on this? I thought you were a capitalist? These guys are worse (and more costly to you and me) then all the welfare scammers put together. Call me crazy but I believe in rewarding hard work and excellence, but when a buisness fails from greed, sloth and stupidity I can muster no sympathy for them.

You need to reread the article.

But this is more like the government injected that sick dog with a flu strain. It just doesn't make sense. You threaten someone with things they fear. Their reputation is crap already, smearing that wouldn't do dick. Isn't that fairly obvious? If they said something like "I'll have federal investigators go over your dealings and tax records on the hunt for any malfiesance" that would be a threat I might find believable not "I'll devote my press corps to making your reputation marginally worse".

Your modification to my metaphor is pretty brilliant, actually. I'll give you that.

A lot of what you say here sense, actually.

 

[Handsome Rob]

I would like to thank the many of you who have pointed out that I can now justifiably question the veracity of every and all statements made by Barack Obama, lawyer, POTUS.

Again, I thank you

Nice.

 

[hippie_hunter]

No, but why not threaten something that would be effective? Banks reputations are **** right now, of all the things you could threaten the man with you pick the one area they can't get any worse about? You know that makes no sense, you threaten an investigation or something with the IRS, that's what would make sense and scare the guy.

He's a lawyer, bending truth is the job. Painter's paint, by the way.

He is the only thing between them and the pitchforks. If all these corrupt horrific buisnessmen that don't know how to do their ****ing jobs to save their lives were lynched tomorrow, I'd honestly be more concerned about the playoffs. But you were quoting obama stating a fact and trying to get these asshats to stop taking our bailout tax money and using it for ****ing vacations. It's their own incompetance mixed with greed, sloth and stupidity that has them on this line, not obama's press corps.

Just because the financial market has a poor reputation right now, people still have to deal with them. If the Obama Administration demonized them saying how awful they are, ignoring that they just want the money that they're entitled to, people will stop using that bank and put it in other banks thereby destroying it.

If this is true, this is nothing to defend Obama about.

 

[Matt]

It definitely is not anything to defend Obama about. Hell, accusations like this towards Bush or even Clinton would have the same people defending Obama calling for an investigation at least. Yet this cult-like following and media love affair with Obama seems to have thrown that out the window. I see no reason this shouldn't be looked into. If Obama has done nothing wrong, an investigation will prove that and IF he has done something wrong, there should be consequences for such a massive abuse of power.

Of course, I've said it before and I'll say it again, Obama could hold a prime time press conference dressed in a full Nazi officer uniform and people would say he has won votes with Jewish voters by doing so. Therefore, there will be no investigation and even if there were and it proved Obama completely guilty, his supporters would still rabidly defend him.

 

[The Major]

Bush was a bad President, but Obama isn't that good either.

To you. Obama's a great president IMO.

Yeah so? I honestly know why Democrats hate Bush. He was an ******* towards Democrats.

You haven't been paying enough attention to why Democrats don't like Bush if that's the only reason you can think of why we don't like him.

But I find it to be incredibly hypocritical when people go off excusing or supporting Obama, yet they would have condemned Bush if he did the exact same thing.

It's rather disgusting IMO.

It's not hypocritical since Obama isn't doing things like Bush is. Not that Democrats are giving Obama a free pass on everything. He's been heavily criticized for many things by us while he's been in office.

 

[Matt]

 

[The Major]

I agree 100% hh. I was not a fan of Bush by far but for the people that were constantly bashing him to turn around and do the same things they were calling him out on is hypocrisy and it is disgusting that people throw that off as alright or agree with those things just because it is Obama or just because they are democrats.

What things has Obama been doing the same as Bush?

What has Obama been transparent about Major?

Showing the public the full budget than hiding stuff off the books like Bush did.

He's declassifying top secret files the Bush administration used.

He's not hiding the fact TARP funds have been abused and is using investigators to catch the criminals.

He passed the stimulus bill that nobody read until after it was passed.

Recovery.org does allow the public to follow the money from that bill, though.

They were doing stress test on banks but now that won't be released.

They're being released this Thursday IIRC.

The deals with the unions and the auto companies were not public until it already happened.

Which isn't that big a deal. I would like it to be made public, however.

Obama to me is just another politician and the only things he is bringing to light to create transparency in Washington is tools used to bash Bush and the Republicans.

They're only tools which hurt Bush and the Republicans since that party has been doing bad things for 8 years that need to be dealt with. Ask yourself this. If Bush and Republicans haven't done anything wrong why are they hurt at all by Obama using transparency on their past?

He released on the memos regarding torture but didn't release what information they got until after he got called out on it.

Are you talking about Cheney?

And, now they are being accussed of threatening people.

1. The government can do this under the right circumstances. The bankers screwed the economy but still want the status quo to continue. That time is over. Its obvious Obama playing nice isn't working. I'm surprirised Republicans don't like what he's doing with the bankers. Doesn't your party prize personal responsibility as a tenet? I know you guys love a president who smacks down those who get in their way. Bush couldn't do it enough when he was president for your party. The financial industries have needed tougher regulation for decades. Obama can't do that by playing nice.

2. Obama threatening the bankers good reputation is a non-threat. Bankers don't have a good reputation in the first place. With this recession people probably hate them more than lawyers.

 

[hippie_hunter]

To you. Obama's a great president IMO.

But he really hasn't done anything to be called great, good, bad, horrible, or whatever. He's done some good things and he's done some bad things. That's it really.

You haven't been paying enough attention to why Democrats don't like Bush if that's the only reason you can think of why we don't like him.

Okay, that and you guys got robbed in 2000.

It's not hypocritical since Obama isn't doing things like Bush is.

Something like this is something that Bush would do and after how he went off saying how he wouldn't be like Bush in this regard, that makes him a hypocrite if this report is true.

Not that Democrats are giving Obama a free pass on everything. He's been heavily criticized for many things by us while he's been in office.

On the most trivial of things. As Matt said, Obama is given such a free pass by the most rabid Bush/Republican hater, that if he showed up dressed up as a Nazi, he'd not only be defended but also say that it's a great political move. Granted that this is an exaggeration, but the post-election months have honestly shown the worst attitudes of American liberalism. It's really off putting.

 

[Matt]

On the most trivial of things. As Matt said, Obama is given such a free pass by the most rabid Bush/Republican hater, that if he showed up dressed up as a Nazi, he'd not only be defended but also say that it's a great political move. Granted that this is an exaggeration, but the post-election months have honestly shown the worst attitudes of American liberalism. It's really off putting.

Are you sure it is? He's already got the Na...Obama Youth

Spoiler

Seriously though, some of his supporters are downright creepy.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Are you sure it is? He's already got the Na...Obama Youth



[spoilers]Seriously though, some of his supporters are downright creepy.[/spoiler]

That is one of the creepiest things I have ever seen in my life

 

[The Major]

Major, you REALLY don't have a problem with a President threatening to abuse his position so he can intimidate a political enemy to join him?

Obama isn't abusing his position. He's threatening them because the bankers won't go along with helping him restore the economy. It's clear talking logically won't do it. This means he has to use another tactic to do what needs to be done.

No, Major doesn't have a problem with a DEMOCRATIC president threatening to abuse his position so he can intimidate a political enemy to join him.

How is Obama abusing his position with this but Bush breaking domestic and international law is not? The two situations couldn't be more different.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Isn't coercion against the law? He's also violated states rights clauses within the Constitution. And his continuation of Bush's surveillance programs.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Oh yeah, and he's violating bankruptcy law as well. And allowed North Korea to violate international law.