First came questions about possible White House influence over a half-billion dollar subsidized loan for failing solar-panel maker Solyndra. Questions then arose over an Air Force general being pressured to approve a plan by telecom company LightSquared to develop a nationwide satellite phone network. Both companies are backed by major Democratic donors. In light of these questions involving the White House should the Justice Department appoint a special prosecutor to investigate?

Share your thoughts, answer our question then click "Leave a Comment."


Not sure. Special prosecutors cost money and don't always get results. 1.76% (858 votes)

No. There's not yet enough there to warrant a possible criminal investigation. 2.25% (1,094 votes)

Yes. We need to know if the White House is using taxpayer money for political gain. 94.93% (46,195 votes)

Other. 1.06% (515 votes)

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/16/should-justice-department-appoint-special-prosecutor/#ixzz1YFUDUCh1

Hell yea they should. I am stillwaiting for the change tha was promised.

Sure, if they can waste money to try and connect something, ANYTHING, back to OBAMA, , why not?


it worked with Clinton, they did come up with Monica after all,,,

by the way, I see it going the way of the investigation into the undue PRESSURE white house put on officials to agree with their assessment on WMDS in Iraq,,

in other words,,


not too far

(and I do believe Bush's admin had a one track agenda that discarded any theories that didnt support them going into Iraq, but its hard to prove state of mind and whether someones choice comes from sound logic or dishonest motives...)

Obama admin reworked Solyndra loan to favor donor

The Associated Press

Thursday, Sept. 8, 2011 | 9:10 a.m.

The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors _ including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama _ moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show.

Administration officials defended the loan restructuring, saying that without an infusion of cash earlier this year, solar panel maker Solyndra Inc. would likely have faced immediate bankruptcy, putting more than 1,000 people out of work.

Even with the federal help, Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month and laid off its 1,100 employees.

The Fremont, Calif.-based company was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model. Obama visited the company's Silicon Valley headquarters last year, and Vice President Joe Biden spoke by satellite at its groundbreaking.

Since then, the implosion of the company and revelations that the administration hurried Office of Management and Budget officials to finish their review of the loan in time for the September 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment for Obama as he sells his new job-creation program around the country.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/sep/08/us-solar-manufacturer-investigation/

Check out this link. I have posted it many times, but it looks like you could use a refresher..


http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

No refresher needed, but I appreciate the thought

YEs, of course there HAD been chemical and biological weapons, heck, we helped to implement some of them,,,,


And under Clinton, there was already concern enough to send in inspectors

Who DID NOT FIND CAUSE for invasion at the time,, but FOUR YEARS later,, immediately following 9/11(Which wasnt tied to Iraq) , suddenly this 'intelligence' was coming in to show that there WAS reason,,,,


even though, as stated before, there were OFFICIALS and EXPERTS supplying an alternate opinion,, but then its not touted as those officials being pushed behind the ones agreeing with a need for war

,,,,my point is the difference in the reporting

but, the outcome will be the same


they didnt prove Bush was compliant in an unnecessary war or in a fraudulent representation of the war

and likewise they dont have the solid PROOF that Obama was compliant in anything ILLEGAL concerning loans to a company,,,,



whatever VALIDATION one administration had for making their decision (one that lead to real lives ending)

the other , im sure, can come up with VALIDATION of why they make their decision regarding a loan to a company (one that ended up doing poorly)

neither could be proven to KNOW the outcome at the time of the decision, and both will be shown to have the authority to do whatever it is they did(or didnt do)