Blackmailer in Chief? (UPDATED)

Blackmail is defined as such.

Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand made upon the victim is met.

Now, let's look at what Tom Lauria, a bankrutpcy attorney, has accused the White House of doing.

A leading bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's Auto Industry Task Force, threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, 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.

In other words, according to Lauria, the White House demanded that his client, Perella Weinberg, go along with a restructuring plan the White House orchestrated for Chrysler or they would be smeared in the press. That sounds like blackmail.

Now, I don't know Lauria nor do I know anyone in the White House personally. The White House denies this and even the firm in question sort of denies it. (they said that this wasn't the reason they ultimately backed down. that's non denial denial) Though, the White House has already engaged in something near such a blackmail when they publicly, themselves, called out these companies in a press conference.

The implications of this are huge, and so, it should be investigated fully. Yet, most of the media has decided to conveniently not report this story at all. This story is only getting any real attention in business journals and on Fox News. Most of the MSM has nearly totally ignored the story. In other words, the specter that the president is willing to blackmail private companies in order to get what he wants is of minor concern to the press corp.

One would think that if you were a member of the press, the truth of this story would be vital. Either we have a White House totally out of control and drunk on power that's already committing criminal acts, or we have a bankruptcy attorney drunk on power committing criminal acts. Either the reputation of the White House needs to be restored, or their ruthless and criminal behavior needs to be stopped.

Furthermore, the story has even more intrigue for the press. The implication from Lauria is that the White House also has total control over the press corp (exemplified when they stood with amazement when he surprised a press briefing with his appearance). If this is true, it also means that we have an unholy alliance between a president and those that are supposed to report on him. It means that rather than acting as a watchdog they are acting as propagandists, and attack dogs if necessary. So, one would think that this makes it even more vital the truth come out. Don't hold your breath. The press is not all that interested in reporting the truth as it relates to Obama. They are only interested in reporting that which makes him look good.

UPDATE:

According to Hot Air, the story said by Lauria has now been corroborated by another source.