d.did, mary miller. >> greta: i saw her august 17th letter, i thought was the weirdest. was, the we have been asking for this stuff for years and didn't get it. this is two weeks before you declare bankruptcy and suddenly this woman sends this letter out she may be absolutely right and legitimate letter, that letter was bothering. >> and she goes back to 2010 e-mail. so she is covering herself, i told you so. where is the evidence to show that you are not doing this. >> greta: and the way the law is broken, in the restructuring, the restructuring allows investors to jump the line and get ahead of taxpayers should the company go belly-up. >> no one should get priority over taxpayers' money. >> greta: is that was that law broken? >> its one sentence law. you cannot subordinate taxpayers to any private investors. here we had $535 million subordinated to two hedge funds one owned by george kaiser. when you look at this deal and all the documents that were dropped. >> greta: i didn't look at all of them. >> there is a great cause for alarm. political influence that is started

>> was mary miller. >> is she a treasury employees?se there was a request to see if we could get a briefing on solyndra. >> okay. that is great. and i see that i have an l.a. times article that i have looked at september 26, 2011 article that references a white house meeting in late october lawrence summers then director of the national economic council and timothy governor the secretary treasury expressed concern the selection process for the federal loan guarantees wasn't rigorous enough and raised the risk that funds could be doing to become going to the wrong companies including ones that didn't need the help. so is it fair to say that as a problem with the process with loan guarantees such as solyndra had risen to the level of the assistant secretary mary miller and to the secretary himself? >> why don't i answer that. there were principles and devotees of all these agencies, the department of energy, the treasury department, the office of management and budget going up to the deputy secretary and secretaries who would periodicall

this is mary miller, above you expressing concerns. at any point -- and to refers to in the later email a july 2010 concern that the department of treasury raised with an edgy. any step of the way was there a feeling that they are not going to comply with the law? you say it in your e-mails. they are not following about getting justice involved. why don't you all get justice and bald? another $4.7 billion that went out the door a few weeks ago. >> i want to answer that because this refers to a variety of e- mails here. and for a question for the committee. -- and important question for the committee. it is not our role to interpret department of energy statutes and and -- authorities. in no case will be doing that. we were never rendering legal judgment as to whether they were complying -- >> you were telling them they should consult -- >> we were identifying an issue. we were not answering the question or drawing legal conclusions. >> you are citing specific statutes. >> we are citing statutes -- >> if you are concerned -- please, don

this is mary miller above you expressing concerns. at any point, she even refers to in later e-mail a july 2010 concern that the department of treasury raised with the department of energy. at any step of the way was there, was there a feeling that they're not going to comply with the law? y'all say in your e-mails. they're not following about what we say about getting justice involved. why didn't y'all get justice involved? we're talking 535 million here. another $4.7 billion went out the door a fuse weeks ago. >> congressman i will answer that because this refers to variety of e-mails here and that is important question and important question for the committee. it is not our role to interpret the department of new york's statutes and authorities and in no case were we ever doing that we were never rendering a legal judgment as to whether they were complying with the law or -- >> you were telling them they should consult with the department of justice. >> we were identifying a issue and asking a question. we weren't answering it or d

again, this is mary miller above you expressing concern. at any point -- she even refers to a leader e-mail july 2010 concern that the department of treasury raised with the department of energy. any step of the way was there a feeling they are not going to comply with the law because you see this in your e-mail they are not following what we are saying about getting justice involved why didn't you will get justice and of course we're talking 530 million here there's another 4.7 billion that went out the door just a few weeks ago. >> this refers to a variety of e-mails here and obviously that's an important question and important question for the committee. it is not our role to interpret the department of energy's statutes and authorities and in no case were we ever doing that. we were never rendering a legal judgment as to whether they were complying with the law. >> you're telling them they should consult with the department of justice. >> we were asking a question. we were not answering it or drawing any legal conclusions and in fact th

the majority is highlighted his comments by mary miller, the assistant secretary for financial markets in an august 17 e-mail to omb, deputy jeffrey snyder regarding restructuring of the solyndra mode. if you can take a look at tab 12 in your notebook and look at that e-mail. in the e-mail, ms. miller writes, our legal counsel believes that the statute in the d.o.e. regulations both require the loan should not be subordinate to any of the loan or debt obligation. mr. grippo, gina look at the treasury department rendered a legal opinion but their subordinate interest in the solyndra and the statutory requirements regarding the d.o.e. loan guarantee program? like we did not render such a legal opinion. >> you did not give a legal opinion? your department? does the responsibility resides at the department of treasury for interpreting and implementing title 17 as it relates to the department of energy's authority to subordinate loans upraised under statue? >> it is not the treasury's responsibility to interpret energy statute. >> is the department of energy charged with implementing statut

now the assistant treasury secretary, mary miller, saying in an email, look, to our knowledge, this hasappened before. there's never been a loan that's been restructured like that. that's my point when i say maybe it's time to get this thing checked out by a few legal eyes. >> yeah. again, it raises questions why was solyndra such a special case, the idea of giving them the money in the first place to, the terms of the loan, then the renegotiation of the loan, it raises a lot of questions. obviously congress is staying on it. i can't say that there's the smoking gun yet, but it is awfully suspicious. >> trace: before i let you go, chris, i want to get your take on this breaking news that just came out of washington, president obama announcing his plans to put 100 u.s. troops on-the-ground in central africa. now we're told they'll be 32 help against a brutal rebel group known as lords resistance army or the lra. what kind of questions are people raising about this in washington? >> first of all, it's come as a surprise, to the best of my knowledge, to the oversight groups in congress. it

host: mary miller is with? guest: the treasury department. here you have these red flags.econdly you have people in the administration that said go to the department of justice to get a ruling, yet this lady went ahead and said in her opinion, it is the best interest to subordinates taxpayers. it does not make sense, and when you read this sentence is clear you cannot do it. host: you have seen something like 78,000 pages of documents. have you found a smoking gun here yet? guest: i think we have. the best thing is to bring in the council, and the secretary of energy, and let them present their case for the american people. if, in the estimation of the american people, he broke the law, then i think that would be clear that there was no justification for what he did. host: of austin is on the democratic line from waldorf, maryland. good morning. are you there, austin? caller: i think this $500 million is a drop in the bucket. how come you're not investigating the crooks on wall street that brought the country down? if this company had not gone bankrupt and succeeded would

host: mary miller is with? guest: the treasury department. here you have these red flags. secondly you have people in the administration that said go to the department of justice to get a ruling, yet this lady went ahead and said in her opinion, it is the best interest to subordinates taxpayers. it does not make sense, and when you read this sentence is clear you cannot do it. host: you have seen something like 78,000 pages of documents. have you found a smoking gun here yet? guest: i think we have. the best thing is to bring in the council, and the secretary of energy, and let them present their case for the american people. if, in the estimation of the american people, he broke the law, then i think that would be clear that there was no justification for what he did. host: of austin is on the democratic line from waldorf, maryland. good morning. are you there, austin? caller: i think this $500 million is a drop in the bucket. how come you're not investigating the crooks on wall street that brought the country down? if this company had not gone bankrupt and succeeded woul

host: mary miller is with? guest: the treasury department. here you have these red flags. secondly you have people in the administration that said go to the department of justice to get a ruling, yet this lady went ahead and said in her opinion, it is the best interest to subordinates taxpayers. it does not make sense, and when you read this sentence is clear you cannot do it. host: you have seen something like 78,000 pages of documents. have you found a smoking gun here yet? guest: i think we have. the best thing is to bring in the council, and the secretary of energy, and let them present their case for the american people. if, in the estimation of the american people, he broke the law, then i think that would be clear that there was no justification for what he did. host: of austin is on the democratic line from waldorf, maryland. good morning. are you there, austin? caller: i think this $500 million is a drop in the bucket. how come you're not investigating the crooks on wall street that brought the country down? if this company had not gone bankrupt and succeeded woul

maris quality of it. an asterisk: "he's good, and he's still alive." well, tell arthur miller about that.he wouldn't be happy. that's right. [laughter] how would you describe your career? my career, or who i am as a playwright? that's an even better question. i don't know. i'm a playwright. i hope that my plays have something to do with how we live and how we could alter that, perhaps. i hope my plays are useful. i hope that my craft is getting better so that i can provide something that is both diverting and involving at the same time. but i don't think about myself in the third person very much. our guest has been playwright edward albee. i'm ken paulson, back next week with another conversation about free expression, the arts, and america. hope you can join us then for speaking freely. captioning provided by the first amendment center, funded by the freedom forum. captioning by kathy at captionmax www.captionmax.com