Shocker: Obama Administration May Have Forced Fiat Partnership On Chrysler

A government “shotgun marriage” done more for the political expediency of it for Obama than anything else. Which is exactly the sort of stupidity that happens when the government starts trying to manage the private sector.

Even if they ultimately lose their last-minute court battle, the Indiana pension funds defending their rights as secured first-lien creditors of Chrysler have done a valuable deed.
We have learned, among many other things, how at least one government lawyer characterized the funds’ lawyer, Thomas Lauria.
A $10,000 Democratic Party donor, Lauria, despite clear evidence of intimidation of his originally larger pool of clients by Obama himself (in his April 30 speech announcing the company’s bankruptcy filing) and his car guys, has nonetheless bravely pursued the important contract law and fiduciary duty issues involved in the shortchanging of his clients for several weeks. Wait until you see the word the government lawyer used to describe Lauria.
As a result of Lauria’s legal efforts, we have also learned of e-mails showing that the government drove the Chrysler-Fiat deal over Chrysler management concerns, and did so despite more than likely knowing very little about shotgun marriage partner Fiat.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration rushed an alliance between Chrysler LLC and Fiat SpA despite Chrysler’s worries about Fiat’s financial health and its willingness to share technology, according to internal company emails.
The emails show Fiat ignoring requests for documents and trying to change contract terms late in the talks. A Chrysler adviser at one point said the deal risked looking as if the U.S. auto maker and the Treasury Department, which helped broker the pact, were “in bed with a shady partner.” In another note, an official referred to the Treasury Department as “God.” …
An internal memo 13 days later from Chrysler’s advisory team also said Fiat’s “off-balance-sheet investments” in joint ventures around the world posed an economic risk and a political risk,” including the appearance that “Treasury/Chrysler” was “in bed with a shady partner.”
Eight days before President Barack Obama announced his support for the alliance in an April 30 speech, Chrysler officials were still bristling over what they considered Fiat’s unwillingness to provide even basic information about its finances. …
Fiat is putting in no cash.

Obama demonized Chrysler’s bondholders when they opposed the Fiat deal. When/if the deal between Chrysler and Fiat fails, and when/if Chrysler needs another bailout from the government (it’s going to happen), who will Obama demonize then? Who will be the scapegoat for Obama’s bad policies?