Posted on 06/13/2009 7:25:33 AM PDT by JRochelle
When we last left the negotiations between Chrysler’s senior bondholders and Barack Obama’s auto task force, Thomas Lauria and his clients alleged that the government used intimidation tactics and threatened to sic the White House press corps on individuals if they didn’t give up their rights to allow the unions to win in the bankruptcy. Congress took an interest in this”madman” theory of the Presidency and got access to some e-mails floating between the task force and an analyst. Rep, Steven LaTourette (R-OH) reads from the e-mails, in which the auto task force calls Lauria — their attorney — a “terrorist” and refuses to negotiate after a Chrylser expert consulted him:
Ms Underestimated writes: The important part comes at the end: an email exchange between Matthew Feldman, attorney on the President’s Auto Task Force, and Robert Manzo, Chrysler restructuring expert. Manzo is basically pleading to further negotiate to prevent bankruptcy, but Feldman is having none of it. Here is the exchange: Robert Manzo, Chrysler restructuring expert: “I hope you think it’s worth giving this one more shot.” Matthew Feldman, attorney on the President’s Auto Task Force: “I’m now not talking to you. You went where you shouldn’t.” Manzo: “Sorry. I didnt’ mean to say the wrong thing and I obviously did. I was trying oto make sure that if we had to contribute to the solution you knew we had some room. Sorry I did not realize the mistake!!” Feldman: “It’s over. The President doesn’t negotiate second rounds. We’ve given and lent billions of dollars so your team could manage this properly….And now you’re telling me to bend over to a terrorist like Lauria? That’s B.S.”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
That’s probably what’s delaying it. I could have picked up a standard config there at the show (any of their standard configs) in person, or if I placed my phone order on Monday for a “no additional options” or standard config, I could have it shipped to my door by Wednesday.
On the plus side, I was happy to see all the Radway Green 308 ammo. :D
try some decaf
___________
Kona decaf is the only kind I drink, but thanks for the tip.
Let me understand this. Are you saying that f Obama decides you are planning a nuclear attack, you should forfeit your right to habeas corpus? If not, what are you saying. You appear to be remarkably trusting of our new president. I am not.. If he accuses you, I think that you should have the right to face your accusers in court. It was precisely becaues of potential situations like that the founders made sure that this ancient right was in our Constitution.
Please note that the Constituion reserves that power to the Congress not the president (it is listed under the powers of Congress in the Constituion). Please also note also that Supreme Court precedent (from the Civil War no less) holds that Habeas Corpus could only be suspended ONLY if Congress approved (it didn't in the Padilla case) AND if the courts were no longer functioning (they were in the Padilla case). Let me also note that many people in the current administration regard you as a traitor or "rebel."
If that Obama therefore decides that you should therefore be locked away without charges or trial, what possible objection can you raise? It is simply your word against theirs in such a situation. Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather trust a jury to make such a decision. Why don't you?
The list, ping
Our government should leave our churches in peace!
You are correct of course, it is listed in Article I, which deals with Congress, it's organization, powers and limits thereto. (I do think the courts made up the part about "if the courts are still functioning though, jealous of their own powers)
If that Obama therefore decides that you should therefore be locked away without charges or trial, what possible objection can you raise? It is simply your word against theirs in such a situation. Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather trust a jury to make such a decision. Why don't you?
In the Padia case, the courts did finally sort it out. I doubt they'll bother when Obama's goons come for thee and me.
It doesn't work that way. I GAVE you a source to back up my answer to your question (something you NEVER did). Now, the ball is in YOUR court. If the facts, names, quotations cited in the story I provided a wrong, the onus is on you to refute them. Once you do that, the onus will be on me to answer you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.