A Subpoena for Solyndra

[trooper]

Tired of the Obama administration’s “slow-walking” documents related to the Solyndra scandal, Republicans on a House panel voted today to subpoena all documents related to Solyndra. The motion to hold the Obama administration accountable passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a 14-9, party-line vote.

The measure authorizes committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton, R-MI, to issue a subpoena against leading figures in the administration, whom Republicans say have withheld pivotal documents that would allow them to understand how the government loaned and lost half-a-billion dollars to a Green energy firm known to be a credit risk.

Congressman Upton greeted the vote by saying the subpoena power “is a tool we use sparingly and only as a last resort. Today, it is our last resort.” Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-FL, who is also on the committee, added frankly, “I am not confident that we will have a good faith response from the White House without issuing a subpoena.” The White House, Stearns said, has been “slow-walking” its response.

Upton was more graphic, stating that prying these documents from the administration’s grip has been like “extracting a tooth without anesthesia.”

Although officials boast they have released 80,000 pages of material, Republicans reveal that much of the material has been irrelevant. The Obama administration has proven its bad faith by releasing reams of Solyndra documents to the press before handing them over to Congress — to allow friendly hands to frame the narrative before researchers have finished combing through the document dump.

Although Upton and Stearns had made clear their “request to the White House is not duplicative of our requests to other executive-branch agencies,” Obama’s appointed delegate made no agreement for additional transparency. On Wednesday, committee members met with White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler. Last month, Ruemmler told the committee the documents her bosses had already released “should satisfy the committee’s stated objective.”

Yet somehow the Energy Department discovered 15,000 additional pages of documents it could release immediately before the subpoena vote.

Only on the basis of these new documents released Wednesday did we learn the Obama administration paid an investment banking firm $1 million to consider bailing out Solyndra. Lazard Ltd. examined the company’s books, rejected the deal, and the company went bankrupt within days. President Obama — who protested, “I don’t want to run auto companies, and I don’t want to run banks” — would have become part-owner of Solyndra with the ability to appoint two of its directors.

The committee’s Democrats have predictably circled the wagon and blamed the victim. Congresswoman Diana DeGette, D-CO, opined, “When you send out such a broad subpoena, it will just delay proceedings even more.” Please, don’t make us drag our feet again.

The administration continues to assert that it has an unmatched record for transparency, cooperation, and respect, which fully exonerates its behavior. Energy Dept. spokesman Damien LaVera insisted, “Despite all the allegations and insinuations, the record shows that the decisions related to this loan we made on the merits after extensive review by the loan program” office.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz eagerly seconded the notion in nearly identical language, almost as though the two were reading the same talking points. “And all of the materials that have been disclosed affirm what we said on Day One: this was a merit-based decision made by the Department of Energy,” he fibbed. “We’d like to see as much passion in House Republicans for creating jobs as we see in this investigation,” he added in reference to Obama’s divinely-favored jobs/stimulus bill.

The reality could not be further from the truth. E-mails show administration officials leaning heavily upon career employees, who warned the $535 million Solynda loan guarantee was a losing proposition. Somehow the well-connected firm, linked to a major Obama bundler and supported by Valerie Jarrett, won approval. In February, the administration restructured the deal to allow new investors to recoup up to $75 million ahead of U.S. taxpayers in an apparent violation of the law. Now, we learn of the last minute Hail Mary pass to Lazard Ltd. to save the unsustainable sustainable energy firm.

And this is apparently the tip of an iceberg of corruption. Obama’s chief of staff, Bill Daley, announced the administration would conduct an independent investigation of two dozen similar loans worth tens of billions of dollars. The review will be conducted by former Treasury official Herb Allison, who oversaw the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailout. What could go wrong?

This show of resilience is a welcome change from the Republican handling of other Obama outrages, from the undeclared Libyan war to his threat to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. If they discover criminal wrongdoing, they must show greater strength yet and hold the administration accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-subpoena-for-solyndra/

[Danan]

I wouldn't hold my breath for it, obama administration has never come forth with anything in a timely manner. Why now?

[kiteman]

I wouldn't hold my breath for it, obama administration has never come forth with anything in a timely manner. Why now?

Maybe they are following Presidential precedent:

Friday, June 29, 2007; 2:20 AM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, in a constitutional showdown with Congress, claimed executive privilege Thursday and rejected demands for White House documents and testimony about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

His decision was denounced as "Nixonian stonewalling" by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush rejected subpoenas for documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. The White House made clear neither one would testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas.

Presidential counsel Fred Fielding said Bush had made a reasonable attempt at compromise but Congress forced the confrontation by issuing subpoenas. "With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation."

[Anti This Anti That]

Why are these politicians not going ahead and impeaching this Obama. They know he has committed many crimes, and violated his oath, and the US Constitution. Impeachment is way over due.

[Weapon X]

Why are these politicians not going ahead and impeaching this Obama. They know he has committed many crimes, and violated his oath, and the US Constitution. Impeachment is way over due.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Weapon X

[usndiver]

Maybe they are following Presidential precedent:

Friday, June 29, 2007; 2:20 AM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, in a constitutional showdown with Congress, claimed executive privilege Thursday and rejected demands for White House documents and testimony about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

His decision was denounced as "Nixonian stonewalling" by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush rejected subpoenas for documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. The White House made clear neither one would testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas.

Presidential counsel Fred Fielding said Bush had made a reasonable attempt at compromise but Congress forced the confrontation by issuing subpoenas. "With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation."

You're missing a couple of things here.

1. The entire AG's office serves at the POTUS leisure, regardless of the political affiliation of the office.

2. In 1993, Janet Reno, under Bill Clinton, requested and received, the resignation of all 93 Attorney General's.

The arrogance of the left cracks me up. It's always a tragedy and disenfranchisement when things don't go their way. But, when it comes to the defeat of a conservative idea or principle it's social justice.

Back to the original intent of the topic. Republicans would, IMO, demand the same documents if the POTUS was a republican and was involved in the Solyndra scandal.