JAKE TAPPER: White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm’s Reputation.

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.

The White House said the story was false.

But read the whole thing, and decide who you believe for yourself. And good for Jake Tapper for looking into this.

UPDATE: Don Surber is not buying the denial.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Neither is reader Tom McCobb: “Bill Burton’s protest that ‘…there’s obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way’ is so demonstrably false that it is a dead giveaway. There most certainly is evidence: Attorney Lauria’s assertions on radio and in print. The evidence might be only hearsay – we don’t know without knowing whether Mr. Lauria was present during the threatening conduct. But that is a only question of the weight to be given to Mr. Lauria’s assertions.”

BOB SOMERBY: Progressives of the world, unite! “Did we mention that Prejean’s position on the issue at hand resembles that of almost all major Dems? Resembles that of President Obama, to cite just one example? At any rate, the boys went on and on—and on—with their clever boob jokes. . . . Criticizing Prejean for this stance, and for her new affiliations, is perfectly OK, of course—although she simply isn’t an important public figure. But Prejean’s stance has nothing to do with her ‘boobs,’ or with Olbermann’s undying need to denigrate women’s intelligence and joke about women’s bodies. The fact that this keeps occurring on a ‘progressive’ TV show is a truly amazing fact about an amazing corporate era. Even more amazing: The fact that a screaming mess like this would then be thrown to a woman host. The fact that few progressives on the ‘liberal web’ will ever say boo about this.” Hope and change. . . .

DAN MAGE: I Was a High-Tech Sweatshop Worker for the Obama Campaign. “Why did the candidate of hope and change use workers paid less than half of the minimum wage?”

THE FIREFLY ALUMNI CLUB: Is there a curse?

HEH: Census Worker Accused Of Inappropriate Questions.

Mertin said the man commented about her clothing, asked if she’d like a back rub. She said he even asked if she “was wearing pink undies.” Mertin said she felt immediately uncomfortable and started to back away, but it wasn’t just the conversation that bothered her.

“On several occasions, he touched himself,” she said.

Mertin went inside, locked the door and called police. She also sent the Census Bureau an e-mail, assuming the man must be an impersonator.

But, it turned out the man was really employed as a Census worker.

You’d think they’d be able to find better help in the midst of a recession. And the Census Bureau wouldn’t confirm that the man was fired.

YEAH, IT’S LIKE middle school out there.

Related thoughts here.

A MAP OF Beloved Europe.

CASTING THE HEDGE FUNDS AS VILLAINS: And why the press thinks it’s good for Obama to demonize people who don’t go along with the program. For a figure of hope and change, he’s sure big on demonization. I hope that changes. . . .

Plus, from the comments: “In particular, I found interesting his label that creditors are ‘speculators’, when in fact some some of these bondholders were part of the 2003 class to fund….. the UAW pension fund! Given that the reconstituted Chrysler will need cash flow, who will fund them?”

PROFESSOR BAINBRIDGE: Revisiting the Filibuster Deal.

JUST SAY YES: Nationwide Tea Party Leaders Call on Obama to Live up to Meeting Promise .

Eighteen national leaders of the Tea Party protest movement, which has drawn the participation of hundreds of thousands of Americans over the past few weeks, today responded to President Barack Obama’s invitation to meet with members of the Tea Party movement to discuss solutions to the nation’s fiscal challenges.

Speaking at a townhall meeting in Arnold, Missouri this past Wednesday, Obama said: “So, you know, when you see — those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we’re going to stabilize Social Security.”

The national leadership team of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, one of several organizations that form the grassroots ecosystem of the Tea Party movement, this afternoon faxed a letter to the White House accepting the President’s invitation for such a discussion. “The Tea Party movement has grown because millions of Americans believe the government is heading in the wrong direction and their government is not only not listening to them, but ignoring them. We need to have a serious, public discussion of these issues. We are ready to have that discussion with you and look forward to your response,” the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition leaders wrote in their letter to Obama.

Think he’ll meet with them?

JACOB SULLUM: Everybody’s a Critic—and a ‘Cyberbully,’ Apparently.

SUSAN ROESGEN, call your office!

A BUNCH OF interesting food links.

TOM MAGUIRE: Maybe Stephon Marbury Could Teach Michelle Obama Something.

LET’S HOPE THEY DON’T: Swine Flu Deaths Ebb, But Could Come Back Strong.

DELIVERING A BABY, with help from YouTube.

DAVID HARSANYI: Change the GOP Can Believe In.

DUTY, RESCUE, and the kindness of lawyers.

DAVE KOPEL LOOKS AT the Second Amendment record of some potential Obama Supreme Court nominees. One person he doesn’t discuss is former Stanford Law School dean Kathleen Sullivan. She hosted a Second Amendment conference at Stanford where I spoke a few years ago, and seemed in that — as she’s seemed in many other things when we’ve interacted over the years — to be open-minded, fair, and intellectually honest.

Plus, some related thoughts from Stuart Taylor.

PJTV: STEPHEN GREEN looks at the week in blogs.

IN THE MAIL: From Peter Wallison and Joel Gora, Better Parties, Better Government: A Realistic Program for Campaign Finance Reform.

FIRST IT WAS MURTHA, NOW OBAMA SNUBS VISCLOSKY:

President Obama plans to cap his cap-and-gown commencement address at the University of Notre Dame later this month with an Indianapolis fundraising event for four Indiana House Democrats, according to the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette’s Sylvia Smith. . . .

Notably absent from the guest list for the fundraiser is the state’s only other Democratic House member, Peter J. Visclosky. On Thursday, a set of Washington watchdog groups called for a House ethics investigation into the relationships between several lawmakers, including Visclosky, and a now-defunct lobbying firm that contributed heavily to the House members and won their backing for clients’ earmarks.

I wonder if Obama knows something. Are indictments in the works?

WHITE HOUSE THUGGERY: A transcript of the key bit from bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria’s radio interview.

UPDATE: This passage strikes me:

One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.

How does the supposedly independent White House Press Corps feel to know that it’s being wielded as a weapon by Obama’s operatives? Might it at least be interested in looking into these allegations?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Ed Morrissey comments:

Glenn Reynolds wonders how the White House press corps will feel about being used as an arm of the administration to beat its opposition into submission. My guess? Enchanted, with just a couple of exceptions. He also wonders whether they will show the slightest inclination to ask about these allegations. So far, it looks like the Sounds of Silence on the WHPC dial rather than We’re Not Gonna Take It.

Bear in mind that this is one attorney operating in his client’s interest, and attorneys do like to make media waves by fighting cases on the evening news and the front page before they fight them in court. However, the WHPC should be asking whether they’re getting played by the Obama administration — and consider the strong possibility that they’ve allowed themselves to be put in that position.

Indeed. Related thoughts from Nick Gillespie.

FOLLOWUP: White House Denies Threats.

CONCORD MONITOR: The More Restraints On Earmarks The Better.

Rep. Paul Hodes, who was out of the blocks in a flash when Sen. Judd Gregg announced that his intention to retire in 2010, continues to make a mark in Washington. Last week, Hodes and fellow Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona sponsored a bill that would prohibit lawmakers from accepting campaign contributions from the top officials of any company that benefited from an earmark sponsored by that member of Congress during the following election cycle.

The bill isn’t perfect. Its prohibitions, for now, apply only to the president, CEO, chief operating officer or chief financial officer of the earmark beneficiary. There are already, no doubt, people hard at work figuring out ways to get around the ban. House members’ terms are also shorter than then the memories of earmark beneficiaries. Both sides could simply factor the new rule into their long range planning – play now, pay later. Still, the bill is a big step in the right direction, and members of Congress who vote against its passage will have some explaining to do.

Faster, please.

IS IT TIME TO reframe framing?