Judge Asked To Make Treasury's Role In 2009 GM Bailout Public

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon
We’re committed to finding, researching, and recommending the best products. We earn commissions from purchases you make using links in our articles. Learn more here
judge asked to make treasury s role in 2009 gm bailout public

Before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia this week, the Center for Auto Safety asked the judge to make public the U.S. Treasury’s role in the 2009 General Motors bailout.

Bloomberg reports the consumer safety advocacy group asked the judge to force the United States federal government into disclosing a number of documents linked to the Treasury’s role in the bailout, suggesting the department told GM to cast aside responsibility for any defects or accidents tied to said defects before receiving $49.5 billion in funding.

On the other side, the Treasury is asking the judge to dismiss president Clarence Ditlow’s 2011 lawsuit for the aforementioned information, warning that being forced to go public would harm the government’s chances to come to the aid of a company whose demise would greatly damage the overall economy.

[Image: GM]

Cameron Aubernon
Cameron Aubernon

Seattle-based writer, blogger, and photographer for many a publication. Born in Louisville. Raised in Kansas. Where I lay my head is home.

More by Cameron Aubernon

Join the conversation
34 of 90 comments
  • 50merc 50merc on Jan 22, 2015

    Exactly how would "disclosure ... hurt [the government's] chances of negotiating a future rescue of a company considered essential to the economy"? If the disclosure revealed Treasury wanted New GM to be free of liabilities tied to Old GM, I wouldn't be disturbed. I'd consider that to be a prudent policy for the public purse. Alternatively, if the disclosure showed GM and Treasury knowingly colluded to maintain secrecy of the ignition switch debacle (or other hidden offenses), thereby putting more motorists at risk, then I'd consider that to be a scandal. To hell with protecting the guilty.

    • See 1 previous
    • Pch101 Pch101 on Jan 22, 2015

      "If the disclosure revealed Treasury wanted New GM to be free of liabilities tied to Old GM, I wouldn’t be disturbed" That's the entire point of filing bankruptcy. Perhaps we could launch a new investigation into the wetness of water.

  • 50merc 50merc on Jan 22, 2015

    Yes, the objective was to create a viable New GM. Inevitably, some had to sacrifice. But it is not unreasonable to ask the Treasury to defend what happened. So make it do that. In all the years I worked in state government, I never saw secrecy serving any purpose other than keeping politicians and bureaucrats out of hot water.

    • See 19 previous
    • Landcrusher Landcrusher on Jan 23, 2015

      @Pch101 I see now I've been trolled. Any reasonable explanation would take less time than you've spent avoiding it. I don't get the trolling thing, and no, I don't want an explanation. I don't get all sorts of stupidity.

  • An innocent man An innocent man on Jan 23, 2015

    It's fun watching my friends on the left defend Big Corporations.

    • See 7 previous
    • Landcrusher Landcrusher on Jan 24, 2015

      @VoGo Thanks, VoGo.

  • Conslaw Conslaw on Jan 23, 2015

    The government's position is ridiculous. Hiding the decision making process is more likely to lead to good ideas being lost and bad ideas being repeated.