About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Limbaugh, Fox Business push disputed claim: White House "threatened" investment firm

May 04, 2009 4:41 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh and Fox Business advanced the disputed claim that the White House "threatened" Perella Weinberg with, in Limbaugh's words, "reputation ruination" to compel the firm to support the Chrysler bankruptcy offer. However, neither noted that Perella Weinberg has denied the allegation.

12 Comments

On May 4, Fox Business co-hosts Cheryl Casone and Tom Sullivan and radio host Rush Limbaugh advanced the disputed claim by lawyer Thomas E. Lauria that his client, Perella Weinberg Partners, was, in Limbaugh's words, "threatened with reputation ruination from the White House press corps" to compel the firm to support the terms of the Chrysler bankruptcy offer. While both Casone and Sullivan's report and Limbaugh's noted that the White House has denied the allegation, neither noted that Perella Weinberg has done so as well.

On Fox Business Network's Fox Business, Casone teased Lauria's upcoming appearance on that evening's broadcast of FBN's Cavuto by noting that the "White House [is] denying claims that it strong-armed at least one of Chrysler's creditors to accept the terms of the bankruptcy offer." Casone then aired an audio clip of Lauria stating during a Detroit radio interview: "One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and, in essence, compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight." Sullivan later asserted: "I did not know the White House had control over the White House press corps to go destroy a company."

Similarly, on his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh cited the interview in which Lauria made the comments aired on Fox Business. Limbaugh went on to state: "[N]ow the White House, by the way, is denying all of this, but there's a pattern here, ladies and gentlemen, that sort of gives the lie to the denial. I mean, this is -- we've referred to the situation that's going on in Washington as loan-sharking, Obama loan-sharking people."

In a May 2 post to his Political Punch blog, ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper reported that Lauria "told ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's Auto Industry Task Force, threatened" Perella Weinberg "that if it continued to oppose the administration's Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the White House would use the White House press corps to destroy its reputation." Tapper subsequently updated the post to note that "[t]he White House and a spokesperson for the investment bank in question challenged the accuracy of the story" and quoted a Perella Weinberg spokesperson saying, "The firm denies Mr. Lauria's account of events."

Additionally, a May 3 post on The New York Times' DealBook blog reported that "Perella Weinberg said in a statement that the firm decided to back the government-proposed settlement Thursday afternoon, after Mr. Obama criticized the lenders in harsh terms," and included the following "full statement by Perella Weinberg":

Suggestions have been made that the Perella Weinberg Partners Xerion Fund changed its stance on the Chrysler restructuring due to pressure from White House officials. This is incorrect. The decision to accept and support the proposed deal was made by the Xerion Fund after reflecting carefully on the statement of the President when announcing Chrysler's bankruptcy filing. In considering the President's words and exercising our best investment judgment, we concluded that the risks of potentially severe capital loss that could arise from fighting this in bankruptcy court far outweighed any realistic potential upside.

We have a very specific mandate from our investors, and that is to carefully weigh investment risks and rewards. It is not our investment mandate to pursue political or risky legal campaigns with our investors' money. This was our assessment of investment risk and reward, nothing else.

While we did and still do believe that the lenders would be justified in pressing their objections under conventional bankruptcy law principles, we believe a settlement would now be in the best interests of all parties in the context of avoiding a drawn out contested bankruptcy litigation proceeding, and we encourage our colleagues in the loan syndicate to pursue this immediately.

From the May 4 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Now we know, ladies and gentlemen, I was right. Now we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, I was right; option number three: They are scared to death. My buddy Frank Beckmann at WJR in Detroit interviewed one of the bankruptcy lawyers for one of the bondholders at Chrysler, one of the clients. His name is Tom Lauria.

Tom Lauria said, "Let me tell you, it's no fun standing on this side of the fence opposing the president of the United States. In fact, let me just say people have asked me who I represent. That's a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and, in essence, compelled to withdraw its opposition to the Chrysler deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence."

And Frank Beckmann said, "Was it Perella Weinberg?" Lauria says, "It was Perella Weinberg."

Now, this happened in Friday -- on Friday in Detroit. It's made the news throughout the weekend. I -- so here's -- now the White House, by the way, is denying all of this, but there's a pattern here, ladies and gentlemen, that sort of gives the lie to the denial. I mean, this is -- we've referred to the situation that's going on in Washington as loan-sharking, Obama loan-sharking people.

Basically what happened was, as we mentioned last week, the bondholders, the investors at Chrysler, were leaned on by Obama and called out personally by the name of hedge funds and they were selfish and they were holding out for a better deal. These people were forced to settle for 20 to 30 cents on the dollar, while the UAW was made whole in the whole thing. And the lawyer, Thomas Lauria, now says that his client was threatened with reputation ruination from the White House press corps.

From the May 4 broadcast of Fox Business Network's Fox Business:

CASONE: The White House denying claims that it strong-armed at least one of Chrysler's creditors to accept terms of the bankruptcy offer. The accusation comes from the attorney for the creditor, Thomas Lauria, in an interview with Detroit radio station WJR -- WJR. Let's listen in to this.

LAURIA [audio clip]: One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and, in essence, compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.

CASONE: And it turns out that the bondholding firm Perella Weinberg eventually agreed to the bankruptcy terms proposed by the White House. We're going to have much more on this story when Neil Cavuto talks to attorney Thomas Lauria tonight at 6 p.m. Eastern time right here on Fox Business.

SULLIVAN: That brings up the whole question about -- I did not know the White House had control over the White House press corps to go destroy a company. But I'm sure Neil will sort it all out for us.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by fluffhedd (May 04, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
        3
      If you read the statements carefully, you will note that neither the White House or Perella Weinberg have denied that Steve Rattner made the threat. They have only denied that Perella Weinberg's decision to change their position was a direct result of the threat. A classic non-denial denial...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (May 04, 2009 5:48 pm ET)
        1  
        A classic non-post post. Should they have a press conference to dispute everything Limpy says?

        Why doesn't Limpy and the Fox Busy Unit prove it?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ewl94232 (May 04, 2009 7:07 pm ET)
            1
          Is that "prove" as in supply supporting evidence or "prove" as in no one ever "proved " that Clinton lied under oath. Larry Kudlow, who I assume you'll automatically disqualify, just announced on the Laura Ingram show that he has witnesses. But would that be proof enough or just more lies manufactured by those stupid Conservatives that lie about everything when they're not living in an alternate reality. Or should we maybe suspend judgment until we see how this plays out? Of course even if it is proven, we should probably just ignore it or deny it or call the people that report it pathologically dishonest and those that repeat it mindless dupes. Would that be the intelligent response?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by sgtjohnboy (May 04, 2009 7:21 pm ET)
          1 3
          Are you kidding me? Why don't you JUMP all over the person who SAID IT instead of the person who REPORTED IT. Your BIAS makes me sick... I heard it myself on the Frank Beckman Show (Who, by the way... is NOT a conservative) I don't hear you critisizing him! Why dont you check your facts before you start howling at the moon over this MIS-INFORMATION that you are providing
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 05, 2009 11:52 am ET)
               
            OK, you convinced me. Oh, wait, no you didn't. Your post was devoid of facts or corroboration of anything you said.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (May 05, 2009 3:04 pm ET)
                2
              Etrw,
              Can't you see you are burying your head in the sand? The facts are there.It doesn't matter if Beckman is conservative or liberal or progressive or communist. Lauria said it on the radio. Nobody disputes that. Sgtjohnboy is simply reporting he heard it first hand.

              Sgtjohnboy criticism is valid. Your denial is classic.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by pointofview (May 05, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
               
            You make a good point. I am sure more will come out about this story, and we will all be able to judge how true it is.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (May 04, 2009 8:49 pm ET)
      3  
      As I stated in the earlier thread, ABC News needs to admonish Jake Tapper for running with a right-wing AM hate radio story and for not asking the WH and the firm for their response FIRST.

      This is a quote from an angry vengeful lawyer that has since been debunked.

      But all the righties want is a stooge like Tapper to print in up so they can claim it is "real news".
      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (May 05, 2009 3:14 pm ET)
          2
        mk,

        Lets see... which would a reasonable person believe. A company changes its mind over millions of dollars owed it simply because Obama made a speech or a direct witness to the proceedings stating that this administration, (one who plays extreme hardball,) made sure there would be consequences for not going along. And as a result buckled under the pressure and is trying to save face?

        You can believe what you want, but it is self serving of the company to not divulge that caved under the pressure of the Obama administration in this matter.

        From what I read, this story falls under the heading of "disputed". There needs to be more reporting on this. If Lauria is correct, the Obama administration is guilty, at the very least, of blackmail.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by FNC Liberal (May 05, 2009 1:41 am ET)
         
      Rush is a vaudeville entertainer with run-ins with the law. A drug abuser with three failed marriages. He has no credibility.

      Fox Business News is the worst financial news outlet. Bloomberg and others are way better than this Murdoch Fox garbage.



      Report Abuse
    • Author by Freword (May 05, 2009 6:50 pm ET)
         
      Fox Business news is a joke
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.