Log in

View Full Version : Lightsquared, Solyndra: The Sequel. Son of Solyndra. Part 2.



crb
09-21-2011, 10:29 AM
I normally wouldn't link to a partisan source, but it is just so juicy.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/21/lightsquared-obamas-dangerous-broadband-boondoggle/



Two high-ranking witnesses — Air Force Space Command four-star Gen. William Shelton and National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Director Anthony Russo — have now blown the whistle on how the White House pressured them to alter their congressional testimony and play down concerns about LightSquared’s threat to military communications. According to Eli Lake of The Daily Beast, both officials were urged to express confidence in the company and endorse its promise to address any technical concerns “within 90 days.”



So, what’s greasing LightSquared’s skids? Hint: It used to be known as “Skyterra.” In 2005, Obama put $50,000 into the speculative firm — raising eyebrows even among his water-carriers at The New York Times. The paper noted that Skyterra’s principal backers at the time of the investment included four Obama “friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.”

One of those pals who urged him to buy stock in Skyterra was George Haywood, a major Skyterra investor and campaign donor who chipped in nearly $50,000 to Obama’s campaigns and to his political action committee along with his wife.

Coincidentally, Obama bought his Skyterra stock the very same day the FCC “ruled in favor of the company’s effort to create a nationwide wireless network by combining satellites and land-based communications systems.” One industry expert tells me it strains credulity to believe the timing wasn’t dictated by inside information. Indeed, the Times reported that immediately after that morning ruling, “Tejas Securities, a regional brokerage in Texas that handled investment banking for Skyterra, issued a research report speculating that Skyterra stock could triple in value.”

Coincidentally, Tejas and its chairman, John J. Gorman, were also major backers of Obama — flying him in a private plane for political rallies and pitching in more than $150,000 for his campaign coffers since 2004.





In 2009, shady billionaire hedge-fund manager Philip Falcone — whose firm Harbinger Capital Partners is reportedly under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for market manipulation abuses — acquired Skyterra.

Coincidentally, Falcone, his wife and LightSquared CEO Sanjiv Ahuja have contributed nearly $100,000 between them to the Democratic Party during critical White House meeting periods and negotiations over LightSquared’s regulatory fate.

Oh, and coincidentally, there’s $6 billion earmarked for a “public safety broadband corporation” buried in the Obama jobs proposal just as LightSquared pushes into that market, too.


The juiciest bit is that the FCC Chairman has refused to testify to congress on the matter about a special waiver granted to the company, giving them spectrum valued at 10 billion (with a B) dollars.



The FCC Chairman’s refusal to attend the hearing comes in the wake of allegations that the White House pressured Gen. Shelton to change his testimony to the Committee, and while Sen. Grassley is still pursuing the FCC Chairman for details of FCC communications with and about LightSquared in the run up to approval of the January 2011 waiver. My guess is that there must have been some reason for LightSquared to submit its waiver request on the Thursday before Thanksgiving and it would be reasonable to assume that they must therefore have been told by the FCC that the application would be placed immediately on public notice with an accelerated (10 day) comment period over the holiday, in the hope that no-one would notice. If that was the case then it would be quite surprising if there was no email evidence of such communications.


How is this kind of corruption going to affect Obama's appeal to starry-eyed young people? If it looks like a duck, and talks like a duck....

AnticorRifling
09-21-2011, 10:37 AM
If it weighs as much as a duck then .... it's a witch!!!

Tsa`ah
09-21-2011, 10:40 AM
I wouldn't consider Malkin a source of any credibility.

Cephalopod
09-21-2011, 10:53 AM
What a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.

~Rocktar~
09-21-2011, 10:57 AM
Whitewater anyone?

Tsa`ah
09-21-2011, 11:09 AM
Whitewater anyone?

Not even remotely similar.

crb
09-21-2011, 11:58 AM
I wouldn't consider Malkin a source of any credibility.
Most of this stuff was sourced to "legitimate" media. Her blog is all linked and stuff. Almost all of it is a matter of public record as well, she just connected dots.

Paradii
09-21-2011, 12:03 PM
I stopped at "I normally wouldn't link to a partisan source", because you are apparently delusional.

Tsa`ah
09-21-2011, 12:18 PM
Most of this stuff was sourced to "legitimate" media. Her blog is all linked and stuff. Almost all of it is a matter of public record as well, she just connected dots.

So if I were to get a connect the dots activity book and some how came up with a cow instead of a cat because I said "fuck basic counting skills" ... the cow would be the correct representation of a numbered dot system mean to be connected?

AnticorRifling
09-21-2011, 12:23 PM
Yes connecting the dots is totally the same thing as doing whatever the fuck you want. Excellent point...

Tsa`ah
09-21-2011, 12:25 PM
Yes connecting the dots is totally the same thing as doing whatever the fuck you want. Excellent point...

Do you need the ball pitched to you lower and slower?

AnticorRifling
09-21-2011, 12:51 PM
Someone's on their Jump to Conclusions mat.

Tsa`ah
09-21-2011, 12:53 PM
Someone's on their Jump to Conclusions mat.

So you want me to roll it over the plate.

AnticorRifling
09-21-2011, 12:56 PM
Put it on the T.

Tsa`ah
09-21-2011, 01:02 PM
Put it on the T.

As you wish ...


Yes connecting the dots is totally the same thing as doing whatever the fuck you want. Excellent point...

It is when you connect the dots in a manner that supports one's political agenda while ignoring the "dots" that would debunk the position taken by one's political agenda.

Malkin took a connect the dots page and did "whatever the fuck" she wanted.

AnticorRifling
09-21-2011, 01:05 PM
Maybe I need to go reread it again but I didn't see this as an instance of a cow being drawn when the dots were numbered to be a cat.

g++
09-21-2011, 01:39 PM
Its 95% speculation. It just presents like 5 facts and then draws or implies 10 inferences from them that are hardly obvious or proven. In fact if half the shit in that article was proven true Obama would be impeached.

AnticorRifling
09-21-2011, 02:04 PM
But would it be a cow?

g++
09-21-2011, 02:07 PM
Whenever I see a jumble of dots I immediately try to eat them because I have severe color blindness so I just assume they are candy dots. This has caused a lot of confusion at several prominent psychiatrist offices.

Cephalopod
09-21-2011, 02:12 PM
Whenever I see a jumble of dots I immediately try to eat them because I have severe color blindness so I just assume they are candy dots. This has caused a lot of confusion at several prominent psychiatrist offices.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/418EKEKT12L._SS500_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Erotic-Dots-Andrews-McMeel-Publishing/dp/1858686733)

Suppa Hobbit Mage
09-21-2011, 02:13 PM
The real question is, who has HPV?

g++
09-21-2011, 02:14 PM
Sluts. I learned that in an earlier thread.

Keller
09-21-2011, 02:14 PM
Whenever I see a jumble of dots I immediately try to eat them because I have severe color blindness so I just assume they are candy dots. This has caused a lot of confusion at several prominent psychiatrist offices.

Mitch?

~Rocktar~
09-21-2011, 02:15 PM
Not even remotely similar.

Oh? President may have done questionable investments, gotten political payback for them and possibly used connections to profit. Pretty similar shit4brains.

Parkbandit
09-21-2011, 03:48 PM
Put it on the T.

He could bat .1500 if you did that.

crb
09-21-2011, 04:18 PM
Its 95% speculation. It just presents like 5 facts and then draws or implies 10 inferences from them that are hardly obvious or proven. In fact if half the shit in that article was proven true Obama would be impeached.

It is all a matter of public record. The "what" isn't open to interpretation.

The "why" certainly is. Was it corruption, or coincidence?

In either case your faith in our system of impeachment is misplaced. Video could surface of Obama at one of Michael Vick's dog fights smoking cuban cigars and fingering a trafficked 15 year old ukrainian girl and the GOP would probably still want to avoid the circus of an impeachment fight right before an election.

That being said, if by some miracle he isn't voted out of office next year....

The bottom line is through presidents have no shortage of people willing to take the blame for such things. It took DNA to get Clinton, you won't find Obama's dick tracks on a lightsquared dress.

Keller
09-21-2011, 04:41 PM
lightsquared only uses big black dildos.

Warriorbird
09-21-2011, 04:43 PM
Crb's a pundit. He can make predictions because he knows all.

Tsa`ah
09-21-2011, 06:12 PM
Oh? President may have done questionable investments, gotten political payback for them and possibly used connections to profit. Pretty similar shit4brains.

Except not.

You need to learn that "may" and "did" are not the same ... especially in the context of an incident in which a former governor turned POTUS was cleared of any wrong doing.

Suppa Hobbit Mage
09-21-2011, 06:32 PM
Except not.

You need to learn that "may" and "did" are not the same ... especially in the context of an incident in which a former governor turned POTUS was cleared of any wrong doing.

Um, the Clintons were never cleared of wrong doing in Whitewater.

Tsa`ah
09-21-2011, 07:34 PM
Um, the Clintons were never cleared of wrong doing in Whitewater.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of exonerated.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-11-20/news/9811200161_1_travel-office-fbi-files-whitewater-investigation

Tgo01
09-21-2011, 07:44 PM
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of exonerated.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-11-20/news/9811200161_1_travel-office-fbi-files-whitewater-investigation

Where does it say he was exonerated for Whitewater in that link?

Tsa`ah
09-21-2011, 08:03 PM
Was he charged and convicted of wrong doing to any degree in whitewater?

The answer is no.

For anyone that isn't retarded, it is understood that the Clintons were exonerated. The problem arises in that the douche bag that walked away with a sack full of tax payer cash for the politically motivated investigation and impeachment remained a douche to the very end and did not explicitly convey an exoneration.

For that we have the Senate ruling on the matter.

Tgo01
09-21-2011, 08:12 PM
Was he charged and convicted of wrong doing to any degree in whitewater?

The answer is no.

Saying not enough evidence exists to suggest impeachable offenses means he was exonerated? Especially when the person who supposedly exonerated him says Clinton's associates may yet implicate him?

crb
09-21-2011, 08:37 PM
http://shewhoprecedesmen.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/inconceivable_means_02.jpg

Tsa`ah
09-21-2011, 08:52 PM
Saying not enough evidence exists to suggest impeachable offenses means he was exonerated? Especially when the person who supposedly exonerated him says Clinton's associates may yet implicate him?



You're confusing political vendettas with reality. I doubt you would find anyone other than partisan idiots that agree with you.

g++
09-21-2011, 10:31 PM
It is all a matter of public record. The "what" isn't open to interpretation.

The "why" certainly is. Was it corruption, or coincidence?

In either case your faith in our system of impeachment is misplaced. Video could surface of Obama at one of Michael Vick's dog fights smoking cuban cigars and fingering a trafficked 15 year old ukrainian girl and the GOP would probably still want to avoid the circus of an impeachment fight right before an election.

That being said, if by some miracle he isn't voted out of office next year....

The bottom line is through presidents have no shortage of people willing to take the blame for such things. It took DNA to get Clinton, you won't find Obama's dick tracks on a lightsquared dress.

All I am saying is that the "why" in that article is just theory and if there was any evidence that the assumptions in it were factual the president would be in a heap of trouble. Its as valid as the arguments that our deployments to Iraq were for oil contracts. Theres no proof that it was the motivating factor for invading Iraq but left wing pundits during the war pointed to similiar out of context facts and built a case for it.....both arguments are equally baseless and self serving without evidence of the motivation. Saying that you can never prove a president has broken the law because they are so powerful is just a circular argument that can be used to prove the president is always doing something wrong. I mean people are free to make baseless theoretical assertions, Im free to think its silly.