Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

[JerseyGuy]

You all should be pissing gallons regarding War contracts and spit once regarding Solyndra.

IMHO, fraud rubs people a different way when the President and his advisers (arguably) knowingly gave tax-payer funds to a company they knew was struggling financially.

Different than how? Different than when a President and his advisers (arguably) knowingly gave tax-payer funds to numerous companies they knew were actively engaged in fraud and waste on a rampant scale in the Middle East?

This has happened under the Obama admin as well - has it not? I haven't seen you scream for Obama's head, pretty ironic I'd say, but I'm not surprised.

Examples, please. I'd like to see evidence that the Obama administration is guilty of the same level of active engagement in fraud and waste on a rampant scale in the Middle East.

Yes, XJib. You're absolutely correct. Fox News and the right-wing scream-o-sphere would like you to believe that giving money to a company that is "struggling financially" is far, far, FAR worse than giving money to companies actively engaged in fraud and abuse on a far larger scale -- oh, and murder, too, just for kicks.

So do you believe it's worse? Is that what you mean by the situation rubbing you in a different way?

You speak as if there has been no fraud or abuse on Obama's watch. Do you have evidence to support this? Or is it okay that there was fraud/abuse on Obama's watch simply because it occurred on a smaller scale?

There will ALWAYS be fraud and abuse during our ongoing Middle East Military Follies. The Bush Administration took it to new levels through cozy crony contacts, mostly run through Darth Cheney. Obama's drawdown in Iraq has already reduced that flow. Are you disputing this?

Now stop tapdancing and answer the question I already asked you: do you REALLY believe that giving money to a company that is "struggling financially" is far, far, FAR worse than giving money to companies actively engaged in fraud and abuse (and murder) on a far larger scale?

YOU'RE the one who said that "fraud rubs people" in different ways, XJib, not me. Do you really think the Solyndra "scandal" should rub people more raw than than the tens of billions of dollars lost to waste and fraud -- not just domestic companies in "financial trouble" -- during Bush's nearly six years in Iraq and over seven years in Afghanistan?

I think when the President appears to be directly connected to fraud that it looks a lot worse then a fraud occurring through multiples of different layers within the bureaucracy. This is relatively well supported - just look at the media coverage (e.g., HuffPo, CNN, et al).

So now we're not talking about what's actually more damaging to the country's fiscal health; we're just talking about what makes a juicier story? Good grief. XJib Rule: Plausible Deniability Is The Key To Good Governance!

I agree this comparing a molehill of a bad investment to a mountain of deliberate massive corruption.

Why do you feel there was no fraud in the Solyndra situation?

a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

[XtremeJibber2001]

This has happened under the Obama admin as well - has it not? I haven't seen you scream for Obama's head, pretty ironic I'd say, but I'm not surprised.

Examples, please. I'd like to see evidence that the Obama administration is guilty of the same level of active engagement in fraud and waste on a rampant scale in the Middle East.

ARLINGTON, VA, Aug. 31, 2011–The final report of the congressionally chartered Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan says at least $31 billion has been lost to contract waste and fraud, and that major reforms are required.

I didn't read the whole report, but I can't imagine contractor fraud in the middle east suddenly stopped once Obama was elected. Just because there is less fraud doesn't mean the fraud is acceptable, but that's just my opinion.

Also, I'm not sure how you can prove GWB was actively involved in contractor fraud, but maybe you can?

You speak as if there has been no fraud or abuse on Obama's watch. Do you have evidence to support this? Or is it okay that there was fraud/abuse on Obama's watch simply because it occurred on a smaller scale?

There will ALWAYS be fraud and abuse during our ongoing Middle East Military Follies. The Bush Administration took it to new levels through cozy crony contacts, mostly run through Darth Cheney. Obama's drawdown in Iraq has already reduced that flow. Are you disputing this?

So therefore fraud is okay? I mean - it is or it isn't, right?

Now stop tapdancing and answer the question I already asked you: do you REALLY believe that giving money to a company that is "struggling financially" is far, far, FAR worse than giving money to companies actively engaged in fraud and abuse (and murder) on a far larger scale?

I never said it was far worse - I simply said we pay more attention when it appears the Executive branch actively engaged in fraud. To answer your question, of course I think the later is obviously worse.

YOU'RE the one who said that "fraud rubs people" in different ways, XJib, not me. Do you really think the Solyndra "scandal" should rub people more raw than than the tens of billions of dollars lost to waste and fraud -- not just domestic companies in "financial trouble" -- during Bush's nearly six years in Iraq and over seven years in Afghanistan?

See above. No, I think people should be more pissed about the fraud in the Middle East ... but it doesn't matter what I think, just look at what's on TV - Solyndra is news because Obama was so close to the fraud.

So now we're not talking about what's actually more damaging to the country's fiscal health; we're just talking about what makes a juicier story? Good grief. XJib Rule: Plausible Deniability Is The Key To Good Governance!

When did I bring up what's more damaging? Of course $500 million is peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

[Dr. NO]

sh*t stinks no matter whose ass it comes out of. Fraud is fraud and deception is deception. Vote all these bums out and start over until they figure out how THE PEOPLE want it done, unless of course you don't trust the people.

[Streamtracker]

What pisses me off is that the right has used this ""scandal" as a pretext to cut funding of many other green investment programs. While at the same time leaving fossil fuel subsidies untouched. That leaves the US as the loser and China as the big winner in the race to be the global supplier of green energy tech. Shortsighted political posturing that will hurt the US in the long run.

No, I see no evidence of fraud. I don't see any evidence that the Obama administration knew that the company was going to fail and had any quid-pro-qou arrangement. They took a gamble. If Solyandra had been working under slightly better market conditions it would shave been a big win and nobody would give a rat's ass about this. But, the cost of solar panels unexpectedly tanked as China's output rose and the price fell (because of heavy Chinese government investment) and the company could not compete. This can happen with any type of investment and it is not uncommon for investors to take a calculated gamble on company that might pay off big. In the bigger picture of total investments in green energy this one company is less than 1 percent of the total. This is politicized issue meant to embarrass the Obama administration and to try and kill green tech investments.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/2 ... -doe-loan/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/1 ... a-scandal/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/2 ... -solyndra/

And what did those emails really show?

CLAIM: Email Saying Deal Was “NOT Ready For Prime Time” Was Warning About Financial Risk
ABC reported that internal emails “show the Obama administration was keenly monitoring the progress of the loan, even as analysts were voicing serious concerns about the risk involved. ‘This deal is NOT ready for prime time,’ one White House budget analyst wrote in a March 10, 2009 email, nine days before the administration formally announced the loan.” [ABC News, 9/13/11]
CNN claimed “prime time” email showed “some White House budget analysts questioned early on how financially sound Solyndra was.” [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 9/15/11, via Nexis]
Fox’s Neil Cavuto: “Prime time” email was warning that “the loan could be very risky for taxpayers.” [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 9/14/11, via Nexis]
Wash. Examiner: “Prime time” email showed “some officials in the Obama Administration thought the loan was a lousy idea.” [Washington Examiner, 9/14/11]
FACT: The Email Did Not Voice Any Concerns About Risk Of Loan
Email Concerned Timing Of Announcement, Not The Merit Of The Loan Guarantee. Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee released some of the context around this email, which was written by an analyst with the Office of Management and Budget, according to House Republicans. In response to an email about a potential announcement of the Solyndra loan during the President’s visit to California on March 19, 2009, the analyst argued that the presidential announcement should not be made before the loan deal was completed. The email argued that “This deal is NOT ready for prime time” because there were more steps to be completed before the loan guarantee could be finalized — namely, OMB had to review the credit rating and Solyndra needed to raise an additional $200 million in private captial. [House Energy and Commerce Republicans, 9/14/11]
Obama Did Not Announce A Deal During His March California Trip. On March 19, 2009, Obama visited California and held a town hall meeting in Los Angeles. He did not announce the Solyndra deal. The conditional commitment to Solyndra was issued on March 20 and announced by Energy Secretary Steven Chu in a press release. [Department of Energy, 3/20/09]
VP Announcement Came After Loan Guarantee Was Finalized In September. The Solyndra loan guarantee was formally issued by DOE on September 3, 2009. On September 4, Vice President Joe Biden announced the deal via satellite at the groundbreaking of the plant along with DOE’s Chu and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was the Governor of California at the time. [Department of Energy, 9/4/09; Contra Costa Times, 9/5/09]
OMB Reviews Credit Subsidy Cost; It Does Not Select Loan Guarantee Recipients. From the Congressional testimony of Jeffrey Zients of the Office of Management and Budget:
ZIENTS: Pursuant to Section 503 of FCRA, OMB reviews and must approve credit subsidy cost estimates for all loan and loan guarantee programs, including the credit subsidy cost estimates generated by DOE for the Title XVII program, to ensure that costs are accounted for appropriately. The Title XVII program provides relatively large-dollar guarantees and because their characteristics, terms, and risks vary greatly from project to project, OMB assesses cost estimates on a loan-by-loan basis. This is the same approach OMB uses for loans or loan guarantees of other similar programs that involve large deals or varied structures, such as those administered by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank.
In performing its statutory role under FCRA, OMB delegates the modeling of credit subsidy costs to agencies, and issues implementing guidance to ensure consistent and accurate estimates of cost. For new programs or programs issuing their first loans or loan guarantees, such as the Title XVII program in 2009, OMB works closely with agencies to create or revise credit subsidy models. Based on these models, OMB reviews and exercises final approval authority over credit subsidy costs to ensure that the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees are presented, and reflect estimated risks, consistently across Federal agencies so that taxpayer funds are invested in a prudent and effective fashion. By contrast, the final decision on whether to issue the loan or guarantee rests with the agency implementing the applicable program – DOE in the case of Title XVII. [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 9/14/11, emphasis added]

So who's committed fraud? Who has been deceived? 1) The lame stream media 2) Those of you who think this is a scandal

[XtremeJibber2001]

What pisses me off is that the right has used this ""scandal" as a pretext to cut funding of many other green investment programs. While at the same time leaving fossil fuel subsidies untouched. That leaves the US as the loser and China as the big winner in the race to be the global supplier of green energy tech. Shortsighted political posturing that will hurt the US in the long run.

No, I see no evidence of fraud. I don't see any evidence that the Obama administration knew that the company was going to fail and had any quid-pro-qou arrangement. They took a gamble. If Solyandra had been working under slightly better market conditions it would shave been a big win and nobody would give a rat's ass about this. But, the cost of solar panels unexpectedly tanked as China's output rose and the price fell (because of heavy Chinese government investment) and the company could not compete. This can happen with any type of investment and it is not uncommon for investors to take a calculated gamble on company that might pay off big. In the bigger picture of total investments in green energy this one company is less than 1 percent of the total. This is politicized issue meant to embarrass the Obama administration and to try and kill green tech investments.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/2 ... -doe-loan/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/1 ... a-scandal/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/2 ... -solyndra/

And what did those emails really show?

CLAIM: Email Saying Deal Was “NOT Ready For Prime Time” Was Warning About Financial Risk
ABC reported that internal emails “show the Obama administration was keenly monitoring the progress of the loan, even as analysts were voicing serious concerns about the risk involved. ‘This deal is NOT ready for prime time,’ one White House budget analyst wrote in a March 10, 2009 email, nine days before the administration formally announced the loan.” [ABC News, 9/13/11]
CNN claimed “prime time” email showed “some White House budget analysts questioned early on how financially sound Solyndra was.” [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 9/15/11, via Nexis]
Fox’s Neil Cavuto: “Prime time” email was warning that “the loan could be very risky for taxpayers.” [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 9/14/11, via Nexis]
Wash. Examiner: “Prime time” email showed “some officials in the Obama Administration thought the loan was a lousy idea.” [Washington Examiner, 9/14/11]
FACT: The Email Did Not Voice Any Concerns About Risk Of Loan
Email Concerned Timing Of Announcement, Not The Merit Of The Loan Guarantee. Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee released some of the context around this email, which was written by an analyst with the Office of Management and Budget, according to House Republicans. In response to an email about a potential announcement of the Solyndra loan during the President’s visit to California on March 19, 2009, the analyst argued that the presidential announcement should not be made before the loan deal was completed. The email argued that “This deal is NOT ready for prime time” because there were more steps to be completed before the loan guarantee could be finalized — namely, OMB had to review the credit rating and Solyndra needed to raise an additional $200 million in private captial. [House Energy and Commerce Republicans, 9/14/11]
Obama Did Not Announce A Deal During His March California Trip. On March 19, 2009, Obama visited California and held a town hall meeting in Los Angeles. He did not announce the Solyndra deal. The conditional commitment to Solyndra was issued on March 20 and announced by Energy Secretary Steven Chu in a press release. [Department of Energy, 3/20/09]
VP Announcement Came After Loan Guarantee Was Finalized In September. The Solyndra loan guarantee was formally issued by DOE on September 3, 2009. On September 4, Vice President Joe Biden announced the deal via satellite at the groundbreaking of the plant along with DOE’s Chu and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was the Governor of California at the time. [Department of Energy, 9/4/09; Contra Costa Times, 9/5/09]
OMB Reviews Credit Subsidy Cost; It Does Not Select Loan Guarantee Recipients. From the Congressional testimony of Jeffrey Zients of the Office of Management and Budget:
ZIENTS: Pursuant to Section 503 of FCRA, OMB reviews and must approve credit subsidy cost estimates for all loan and loan guarantee programs, including the credit subsidy cost estimates generated by DOE for the Title XVII program, to ensure that costs are accounted for appropriately. The Title XVII program provides relatively large-dollar guarantees and because their characteristics, terms, and risks vary greatly from project to project, OMB assesses cost estimates on a loan-by-loan basis. This is the same approach OMB uses for loans or loan guarantees of other similar programs that involve large deals or varied structures, such as those administered by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank.
In performing its statutory role under FCRA, OMB delegates the modeling of credit subsidy costs to agencies, and issues implementing guidance to ensure consistent and accurate estimates of cost. For new programs or programs issuing their first loans or loan guarantees, such as the Title XVII program in 2009, OMB works closely with agencies to create or revise credit subsidy models. Based on these models, OMB reviews and exercises final approval authority over credit subsidy costs to ensure that the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees are presented, and reflect estimated risks, consistently across Federal agencies so that taxpayer funds are invested in a prudent and effective fashion. By contrast, the final decision on whether to issue the loan or guarantee rests with the agency implementing the applicable program – DOE in the case of Title XVII. [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 9/14/11, emphasis added]

So who's committed fraud? Who has been deceived? 1) The lame stream media 2) Those of you who think this is a scandal

Did you even read what you posted? You think there was absolutely no fraud? Better re-read what you posted.

[JerseyGuy]

I didn't read the whole report

I'm guessing that you didn't read ANY of the report. Why don't you go do that, and then we'll talk. Actually, first, why don't you go learn when most of the fraud took place, who benefited, and which party those beneficiaries was connected to.

Also, I'm not sure how you can prove GWB was actively involved in contractor fraud, but maybe you can?

The Bush Administration invented the pretext for invasion; the Bush Administration heavily pushed the privatization of military supply and security contracts with companies that supported the Bush Administration; the Bush Administration defended -- for years -- the rights of those companies to continue to operate in Iraq and Afghanistan. (And I'm not even including fraud related to the Iraqi and Afghan governments.)

Wait, my bad. Guess it wasn't GWB's fault after all. He set the whole thing in motion (he WAS the President, right?) but unless he sent emails to Halliburton saying "Fraud Away, Fellas!", it doesn't count.

So therefore fraud is okay? I mean - it is or it isn't, right?

Minimizing fraud is more than OK -- it's about the best any President can do in that situation. Don't you agree?

See above. No, I think people should be more pissed about the fraud in the Middle East ... but it doesn't matter what I think, just look at what's on TV - Solyndra is news because Obama was so close to the fraud.

No, Solyndra is news because a.) it's new and b.) the entire Rupert Murdoch media empire, AM hate radio and the right-wing blogosphere have been screaming about it non-stop for two weeks. Iraq is old news, remember? Who still wants to talk about that? Who on the right, anyway?

[XtremeJibber2001]

I didn't read the whole report

I'm guessing that you didn't read ANY of the report. Why don't you go do that, and then we'll talk. Actually, first, why don't you go learn when most of the fraud took place, who benefited, and which party those beneficiaries was connected to.

So you're not denying that some degree of fraud continued after Obama became president? I didn't think so.

Also, I'm not sure how you can prove GWB was actively involved in contractor fraud, but maybe you can?

The Bush Administration invented the pretext for invasion; the Bush Administration heavily pushed the privatization of military supply and security contracts with companies that supported the Bush Administration; the Bush Administration defended -- for years -- the rights of those companies to continue to operate in Iraq and Afghanistan. (And I'm not even including fraud related to the Iraqi and Afghan governments.)

Wait, my bad. Guess it wasn't GWB's fault after all. He set the whole thing in motion (he WAS the President, right?) but unless he sent emails to Halliburton saying "Fraud Away, Fellas!", it doesn't count.

Ah yes! You mean these same contracts and companies which still operate in the Middle East under Obama? Why didn't Obama put an end to the rights of those companies to operate in Iraq/Afghanistan? Wait, my bad. Guess Obama didn't have to do anything since, well - Bush started it before he got into office so to hell with it.

So therefore fraud is okay? I mean - it is or it isn't, right?

Minimizing fraud is more than OK -- it's about the best any President can do in that situation. Don't you agree?

I do not agree. Fraud is unacceptable in any amount - where do you work where fraud or the minimizing of fraud is accepted?

See above. No, I think people should be more pissed about the fraud in the Middle East ... but it doesn't matter what I think, just look at what's on TV - Solyndra is news because Obama was so close to the fraud.

No, Solyndra is news because a.) it's new and b.) the entire Rupert Murdoch media empire, AM hate radio and the right-wing blogosphere have been screaming about it non-stop for two weeks. Iraq is old news, remember? Who still wants to talk about that? Who on the right, anyway?

So when I read HuffPo, CNN, and MSNBC these are organization owned by Murdoch? This is news to me.

[Coydog]

Let’s say you decide to invest 1.3% your grandmother’s money in some company called GoingDownTheTubes Inc. However, an analyst emails you that he has reasons to believe GoingDownTheTubes is, well, going down the tubes. But in your desired to impress grandma along with your belief that supporting GoingDownTheTubes is important, you ignore this advice and invest anyway. Sure enough, after the competition lowers its prices, GoingDownTheTubes declares bankruptcy. Does grandma have a case to sue you for fraud?

[XtremeJibber2001]

Let’s say you decide to invest 1.3% your grandmother’s money in some company called GoingDownTheTubes Inc. However, an analyst emails you that he has reasons to believe GoingDownTheTubes is, well, going down the tubes. But in your desired to impress grandma along with your belief that supporting GoingDownTheTubes is important, you ignore this advice and invest anyway. Sure enough, after the competition lowers its prices, GoingDownTheTubes declares bankruptcy. Does grandma have a case to sue you for fraud?

You're comparing apples to oranges.

If I'm your adviser and I advise you to invest in a company that I knowingly is on a path towards failure - why wouldn't you have a case to sue for fraud? Especially if you discover e-mails I sent to my other buddies telling them to steer clear of this investment as it's doomed. If you're telling me that you'd find this as an acceptable practice by your financial adviser then send me your money because I have a bridge to sell you.

Unless of course the FBI is investigating the matter as it relates to fraud just for shits and giggles. It's going to look ugly when the FBI finds Solyndra cooked it's books and even when PwC threw up red flags to the Energy Department and the Obama Administration they still permitted Solyndra to withdraw from their tax-payer based loan. It's not the amount of money that's the issue but rather it's deceit, trickery, and intentional perversion of the truth in order to induce the American people into believing their money was creating jobs in a growing company/industry. Right now it looks like Solyndra, the Energy Dept, and Obama Officials engaged in fraud.

It's quite pathetic the extent you and JG will go to defend the Obama administration in a case which is almost certainly fraud. Maybe Obama was not directly involved, but people he appointed to positions of power most certainly seemed to have engaged in fraud from what I've read.

[JerseyGuy]

I didn't read the whole report

I'm guessing that you didn't read ANY of the report. Why don't you go do that, and then we'll talk. Actually, first, why don't you go learn when most of the fraud took place, who benefited, and which party those beneficiaries was connected to.

So you're not denying that some degree of fraud continued after Obama became president? I didn't think so.

Oh, good God, here we go again. Once again, this isn't an argument between you and I; it's an argument between you and what you THINK I MIGHT have said or PROBABLY said.

Go back and reread everything I've written in this thread, JibJab, and show me where I EVER said that Middle East fraud and waste completely stopped after Obama took the presidency. In fact, I specifically said there would ALWAYS be some level of fraud and waste over there.

Jesus, man, do you even need me here in the chat room for this?

Also, I'm not sure how you can prove GWB was actively involved in contractor fraud, but maybe you can?

The Bush Administration invented the pretext for invasion; the Bush Administration heavily pushed the privatization of military supply and security contracts with companies that supported the Bush Administration; the Bush Administration defended -- for years -- the rights of those companies to continue to operate in Iraq and Afghanistan. (And I'm not even including fraud related to the Iraqi and Afghan governments.)

Wait, my bad. Guess it wasn't GWB's fault after all. He set the whole thing in motion (he WAS the President, right?) but unless he sent emails to Halliburton saying "Fraud Away, Fellas!", it doesn't count.

Ah yes! You mean these same contracts and companies which still operate in the Middle East under Obama? Why didn't Obama put an end to the rights of those companies to operate in Iraq/Afghanistan? Wait, my bad. Guess Obama didn't have to do anything since, well - Bush started it before he got into office so to hell with it.

Thank you, JibJab. This is the PERFECT example of the "how dare you still blame Bush!" argument coming from the right.

Unless Obama on Day One had cancelled every private companies' contract in Iraq and Afghanistan, severed all relations with the Karzai government, and pulled out every single troop from both countries as soon as humanly possible... he's equally as culpable as Bush and Cheney? Well, indeed. As Colin Powell said: if you break it... whoever's in the White House next owns it. (Maybe I have that wrong.)

We're pulling troops out of Iraq. We're pulling troops out of Afghanistan, albeit slower than I'd like to see. The GOP has screamed and/or is screaming about both (except Ron Paul, bless his little never-gonna-be-President soul). We're removing ourselves AND our troops AND private American contractors from both areas.

But that ain't good enough. As far as the GOP is concerned, the day Bush left office, these were Obama's Wars -- just like it was Obama's Economy and Obama's Recession.

But there I go again, reminding people how the current occupant of the White House was saddled with this massive load of sh-t from the craptastic former occupant of the White House. How patently unfair of me.

So therefore fraud is okay? I mean - it is or it isn't, right?

Minimizing fraud is more than OK -- it's about the best any President can do in that situation. Don't you agree?

I do not agree. Fraud is unacceptable in any amount - where do you work where fraud or the minimizing of fraud is accepted?

Don't know much about the history of U.S. private and military intervention in the Middle East, do you?

The U.S. has a long, proud history of military-related fraud and abuse. Bush and Co. took it to new heights over the past several years. Obama, having not ended all fraud and waste in the Middle East before the end of his first term, is now apparently just as bad as Bush? Excellent.

See above. No, I think people should be more pissed about the fraud in the Middle East ... but it doesn't matter what I think, just look at what's on TV - Solyndra is news because Obama was so close to the fraud.

No, Solyndra is news because a.) it's new and b.) the entire Rupert Murdoch media empire, AM hate radio and the right-wing blogosphere have been screaming about it non-stop for two weeks. Iraq is old news, remember? Who still wants to talk about that? Who on the right, anyway?

So when I read HuffPo, CNN, and MSNBC these are organization owned by Murdoch? This is news to me.

The key word here is "screaming", JibJab. I think you know that. Hell, maybe you don't.

[Streamtracker]

Let’s say you decide to invest 1.3% your grandmother’s money in some company called GoingDownTheTubes Inc. However, an analyst emails you that he has reasons to believe GoingDownTheTubes is, well, going down the tubes. But in your desired to impress grandma along with your belief that supporting GoingDownTheTubes is important, you ignore this advice and invest anyway. Sure enough, after the competition lowers its prices, GoingDownTheTubes declares bankruptcy. Does grandma have a case to sue you for fraud?

Well except in this case there was reason to believe the company would do well.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/2 ... -solyndra/

CLAIM: It Was Obvious Before Loan Guarantee Was Granted That Solyndra Would Fail
Diane Sawyer: “Did a half billion dollars of your taxpayer money go to a company certain to fail? And why?” [ABC, World News with Diane Sawyer, 9/14/11, via Nexis]
Investor’s Business Daily: “Solyndra was not a good investment and the White House knew it.” [Investor's Business Daily, 9/14/11]
Fox’s Trace Gallagher: “[M]any experts say there was nothing about this company that was at all promising.” [Fox News, America Live, 9/15/11]
David Webb on Fox: Solyndra “was never viable.” [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 9/15/11, via Nexis]
Forbes op-ed: “Few, if any, lenders thought that giving [Solyndra] money was a very good idea.” [Forbes.com, 9/13/11]
FACT: Solyndra Was Seen By Many As Promising
Solyndra Raised $1 Billion In Private Capital. Time noted that “in addition to government loan guarantees, Solyndra also scored over $1 billion in private capital–including from GOP-friendly investors like the Walton family of Wal-Mart.” [Time, 9/15/11]
WSJ Ranked Solyndra As The Top U.S. Clean Tech Company. In 2010, the Wall Street Journal ranked Solyndra the top clean-tech company with the “capital, executive experience and investor know-how to succeed in an increasingly crowded field.” The “research firm VentureSource (owned by NewsCorp., which also owns Dow Jones & Co., publisher of the Journal) calculated the rankings, applying a set of financial criteria to some 350 U.S.-based venture-backed businesses in clean technology.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/7/10]
WSJ Also Ranked Solyndra In Top Five “Next Big” Venture-Backed Companies. The Wall Street Journal ranked Solyndra number five in a list of the “top 50 venture-backed companies.” The rankings were calculated based on “the track record of success for the venture-capital investors who sit on the company’s board (Board Ranking); the amount of capital raised by the company over the last three years, in comparison to its peers (Total Equity Ranking); the track record of success for the company’s founders and chief executive (Executive Ranking);” “the recent growth in the value of the company (Valuation Ranking)” and the rankings of Dow Jones venture capital reporters and editors. [Wall Street Journal, 3/9/10]
MIT’s Technology Review Chose Solyndra As One Of The World’s 50 Most Innovative Companies. The Technology Review evaluated companies based on their “business model[s], strategies for deploying and scaling up its technologies, and the likelihood of success.” [Technology Review, 2/23/10]
Analyst Cited Solyndra As A Company That Could Have A “Breakthrough Around Cost And Efficiency.” From an April 2009 San Jose Mercury News report:
Craig Irwin, an energy analyst with Merriman Curhan Ford in San Francisco, agrees the current slowdown in the solar industry ”will filter out the most innovative companies and really help promote the next generation of leaders” to produce lower cost solar technologies.
“As the economic equation is really squeezed, people want to see better performing (solar) panels and lower costs,” he said.
Irwin cited Fremont-based Solyndra as a company he believes has some “very interesting technologies that could allow a real breakthrough around cost and efficiency.” [San Jose Mercury News, 4/17/09, via Nexis]
Reuters: Venture Capitalists Point To Solyndra As One Of The Top 10 Companies “Ripest” To Go Public. Reuters reported in August 2009:
An informal poll of venture capitalists and others pointed to six privately held companies as the ripest for acquisition or readiness to go public, out of 34 cited in industries ranging from alternative energy to social networking.
For now, the Silicon Valley Six say they intend to keep growing rather than agreeing to be acquired or go public during the recession.
The top four are business social network LinkedIn, solar panel maker Solyndra, smart grid company Silver Spring, and Zynga, a casual games company whose products run on social networks like Facebook. [Reuters, 8/19/09, via CNNMoney]
Market Conditions Shifted Significantly from 2009 to 2011. A Bloomberg News report noted that Solyndra had “advantages that were more important in 2009 when it received a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee to build a factory” than they are now, noting that the price of the silicon-based panels with which Solyndra was competing “has fallen 46 percent since then.” The article also quoted Julian Hawking of Abound Solar Inc., who stated: “When Solyndra started up it was a completely different time for the industry. Nobody expected the huge drop in polysilicon prices.” [Bloomberg, 9/14/11]

[Streamtracker]

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/2 ... -doe-loan/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/1 ... a-scandal/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/2 ... -solyndra/

And what did those emails really show?

So who's committed fraud? Who has been deceived? 1) The lame stream media 2) Those of you who think this is a scandal

Did you even read what you posted? You think there was absolutely no fraud? Better re-read what you posted.

Did I? This from the guy who admits "I didn't read the whole report". Sounds like your projecting. Go read my links before I can further engage you in dialogue.

[Coydog]

It's quite pathetic the extent you and JG will go to defend the Obama administration in a case which is almost certainly fraud. Maybe Obama was not directly involved, but people he appointed to positions of power most certainly seemed to have engaged in fraud from what I've read.

Then you need to re-read the things you've read. The FBI is investigating Solyndra, not the Obama administration, for falsifying loan documents. If the administration played a direct role in this potential deceit, you'd have government fraud. Is this possible? Sure, but so far, despite the GOP and Faux's most earnest attempts, there is no evidence of this. What is curious is the Republicans seem obsessively interested in finding government fraud here, unlike the suspected $18 billion of contractor fraud many claim occurred under the previous administration.

Now, do you think it was fraud to claim WMDs were in Iraq despite strong evidence to the contrary, or is this just apples and oranges?

[daddy2lk]

Regarding all the comments above (without the jargon):

Obama rushed it through so that his friends could benefit (and before the bottom fell out). The government is almost always first in line in bankruptcy proceedings. Why not here? The oldest trick in the politicians playbook. They know the hoi-polloi will argue amongst themselves and not change anything.

As for the excuse of the drop in silicon prices- this is why the free market works!

With the revelations of Pelosi's and her father-in-law's investing practices this week, all the green mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant. Also, her husband's biggest partner is the communist Chinese. Everyone forgets that thats how communism works. The peasants support the party-faithful.

For all the liberal apologists- the republicans can be as bad as the dems.
This is the biggest bunch of crooks ever elected. It's YOUR MONEY- Wake up!

[Coydog]

This is the biggest bunch of crooks ever elected. It's YOUR MONEY- Wake up!

I suppose that's because the last administration was appointed, not elected.