Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Committee Investigators Seek Answers from Solyndra Investors
House Eenergy & Commerce ^ | September 21, 2011 | Staff

Posted on 09/21/2011 10:19:15 PM PDT by Rabin

The Subcommittee will hold a hearing on “From DOE Loan Guarantee to Bankruptcy to FBI Raid: What Solyndra's Executives Knew” this Friday, September 23, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.

Under a loan guarantee, the government will cover a loan in the event of a default. Normally, private banks provide the loans, but in this case, Solyndra borrowed the money from the Federal Financing Bank.

(Excerpt) Read more at energycommerce.house.gov ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: argonaut; madrone; solyndra
Yahoo "Solar's darkest hour" (or Titanic revisited) = "Crook's View from under the buss."

PopCorn is optional. Rab

1 posted on 09/21/2011 10:19:19 PM PDT by Rabin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rabin

Solyndra investors made out like bandits.
GM and Chrysler investors got totally screwed.

I wonder why the difference?


2 posted on 09/21/2011 10:46:16 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

It’s all in who you write the checks to.

These people make the Clinton operation look clean and saintly by comparison.


3 posted on 09/21/2011 10:53:21 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

Good question, especially since Solyndra with Obama’s blessings got more than any of 36 states from the stimulus program (US Dept of Transportation Federal Highway Administration). Here is a post detailing the fraud from National Review:

“The Solyndra Fraud - Fraud against the United States is one of the most serious felony offenses in the federal penal law.(NationalReview).The solar-energy company was a con game.The Solyndra debacle is not just Obama-style crony socialism as usual. It is a criminal fraud. That is the theory that would be guiding any competent prosecutor’s office in the investigation of a scheme that cost victims — in this case, American taxpayers — a fortune.Fraud against the United States is one of the most serious felony offenses in the federal penal law. It is even more serious than another apparent Solyndra violation that has captured congressional attention: the Obama administration’s flouting of a statute designed to protect taxpayers.Homing in on one of the several shocking aspects of the Solyndra scandal, lawmakers noted that, a few months before the “clean energy” enterprise went belly-up last week, the Obama Energy Department signed off on a sweetheart deal. In the event of bankruptcy — the destination to which it was screamingly obvious Solyndra was headed despite the president’s injection of $535 million in federal loans — the cozily connected private investors would be given priority over American taxpayers. In other words, when the busted company’s assets were sold off, Obama pals would recoup some of their losses, while you would be left holding the half-billion-dollar bag.The criminal law, by contrast, is not content to assume the good faith of government officials. It targets anyone — from low-level swindlers to top elective officeholders — who attempts to influence the issuance of government loans by making false statements; who engages in schemes to defraud the United States; or who conspires “to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, in any manner or for any purpose.” The penalties are steep: Fraud in connection with government loans, for example, can be punished by up to 30 years in the slammer.Although Solyndra was a private company, moreover, it was using its government loans as a springboard to go public. When the sale of securities is involved, federal law criminalizes fraudulent schemes, false statements of material fact, and statements that omit any “material fact necessary in order to make the statements made . . . not misleading.” And we’re not just talking about statements made in required SEC filings. Any statement made to deceive the market can be actionable. In 2003, for example, the Justice Department famously charged Martha Stewart with securities fraud. Among other allegations, prosecutors cited public statements she had made in press releases and at a conference for securities analysts — statements in which she withheld damaging information in an effort to inflate the value of her corporation and its stock.That’s exactly what President Obama did on May 26, 2010, with his Solyndra friends about to launch their initial public offering of stock. The solar-panel company’s California factory was selected as the fitting site for a presidential speech on the virtues of confiscating taxpayer billions to prop up pie-in-the-sky clean-energy businesses.By then, the con game was already well under way. Solyndra had first tried to get Energy Act funding during the Bush administration, but had been rebuffed shortly before President Bush left office. Small wonder: Solyndra, as former hedge-fund manager Bruce Krasting concluded, was “an absolute complete disaster.” Its operating expenses, including supply costs, nearly doubled its revenue in 2009 — and that’s without factoring in capital expenditures and other costs in what, Krasting observes, is a “low margin” industry. The chance that Solyndra would ever become profitable was essentially nonexistent, particularly given that solar-panel competitors backed by China produce energy at drastically lower prices.Yet, as Stiles reports, within six days of Obama’s taking office, an Energy Department official acknowledged that the Solyndra “approval process” was suddenly being considered anew. Hmmmm....Can we start up the Impeachment procedure now?”...excerpt

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277512/solyndra-fraud-andrew-c-mccarthy#.TnWUmxr_XhQ.twitter


4 posted on 09/21/2011 11:05:33 PM PDT by givemELL (Does Taiwan eet the Criteria to Qualify as an "Overseas Territory of the United States"? by Richar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

5 posted on 09/22/2011 12:26:49 AM PDT by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

Good Luck getting any answers when they are all taking the 5th.


6 posted on 09/22/2011 2:18:28 AM PDT by DeaconRed (Cold War Veteran. . . . US Army Security Agency 1964-1968)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

Anybody know if this will be carried by CSPAN?

I’m really anxious to see these guys take the 5th. It seems to me that the convention lately has been to not ask witnesses to testify if they take that position. I hope that doesn’t happen this time - we need that footage for our ads that will run in the fall of 2012.


7 posted on 09/22/2011 7:04:27 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson