RS3J4250. Terry McauliffeThe US Securities and Exchange Commission is looking for answers. Specifically, it wants to know whether electric-vehicle startup GreenTech Automotive in any way abused a foreign investor visa program in the development of the quirky little $15,500 MyCar NEV.

The question was raised by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), who wrote a letter to Alejandro Mayorkas, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, in which he said whistleblowers raised "questions about your role inproviding preferential treatment for Terry McAuliffe and Anthony Rodham in connection with applications related to Gulf Coast Funds Management and/orGreenTech Automotive." You can find the letter and more in the 97-page collection of documents below.

McAuliffe (D, pictured) is currently running for governor of Virginia and left GreenTech Automotive late last year. According to The Washington Post, the SEC subpoenaed documents from Gull Coast Funds and GreenTech Automotive in May and is investigating the issue because there is the companies may have offered a "guaranteed returns" to their investors. Those returns could have been visas if they contributed at least a half-million dollars to help create US jobs. The SEC is not offering any official comments on the matter.

Grassley letter to Mayorkas on alleged preferential treatment for Terry McAuliffe by The Washington Post



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 21 Comments
      EVnerdGene
      • 8 Months Ago
      1. Sleaze - if you spent nearly as much time researching McAuliffe as Grassley, you'd probably come to the same conclusion. Unbiased, referenced summary about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_McAuliffe Would you be at all enthused if he was one of your politicians running for office in Australia ? 2. With as many illegal aliens in the US as the entire population of Australia; yes, I am not at all enthused with the policies of our INS or the people that have sworn under oath to enforce our laws. No, we don't need reform which as being currently proposed, is purely amnesty for somewhere around 20 million criminal aliens. Rewarding bad behavior will only begot more bad behavior. Common f'ing sense. btw: I screamed and begged for a moratorium and cleaning shop after 9-11 (remember all 20 hi-jackers were illegal aliens ?). Now twelve years later, we've added five or so million more criminals to the underreported rolls. Don't write new laws until you can prove you can enforce any laws. The history books will describe the US as a suicide - stupid stupid stupid
      EVnerdGene
      • 8 Months Ago
      Marco, Marco, Marco I'm ashamed of you doing a classic ad hominem attack. Notice on the letterhead of the complaint, there are 17 other senators on the committee that made the complaint. I'd guess slightly over half are democrats since the senate is slightly over half democrap. When sleaze deserves to be called sleaze; I'd call it doing your job. Race-baiting, new job of government ? Hate-baiting, Autoblog's new gig ? Marco, if some sleaze in Australia was doing something like this; I'm sure you'd be unhappy also. However, I sincerely hope your country is smarter than us; not to have such an asinine visa program in the first place. If you want to dig into someone's background, you should check-out McAuliffe also; not just a cherry-picked attacker.
        EVnerdGene
        • 8 Months Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        You are so so right. Only 3 of the 20 were in "illegal" status as of September 11, 2001. http://www.fairus.org/issue/identity-and-immigration-status-of-9-11-terrorists Sorry, with my private industry job, I just don't have the time to research stuff as well as you. I gave a very unbiased, well-documented source for "stuff" on McAuliffe. Please use your surfing skills and look for the real dirt. Then get back to us and report sleaze or no sleaze.
          EVnerdGene
          • 8 Months Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          Of course, if I were McAuliffe, I'd dispute the neutrality. I looked thru the sources; looks like someone was very careful: New York Times, MSNBC, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, Business Week, Time, LATimes, The Atlantic, CNN (most lib pubs) Libs amuse and nauseate me; always defending their ilk. Your leaders can do anything and it just doesn't matter, does it ? Teddy Chappaquiddick Kennedy, John Edwards, money in the freezer Jefferson, "what difference does it make" Clinton, , , , McAuliffe is sleaze. Dig and you might agree. Don't dig, keep head up butt. nuff said to the zombies
          EVnerdGene
          • 8 Months Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          You can't defend your ilk, so you attack the source and the messenger. Right out of the community organizer playbook.
          raktmn
          • 8 Months Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          Wow, I've never met anyone too stupid to understand how wiki works. Today I've met that idiot. McAuliffe has nothing to do with why this wiki page is marked with "The neutrality of this article is disputed". I guess you really do have a horrible problem. You have zero clue about anything you talk about without researching everything you say. Go figure out how the basics of the internet, like wiki work before you keep making a fool of yourself.
          raktmn
          • 8 Months Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          Nerd, I don't have to research anything, I get my information from reliable sources in the first place, and remembered it from a decade ago. Unlike your typical lunatic fringe sources that lie to you, and you only find out they are wrong when you repeat their lies and get called on it. Like your s0-called "unbiased" source that says right on the top: "The neutrality of this article is disputed." What part of that do you not understand?
        Marco Polo
        • 8 Months Ago
        @EVnerdGene
        @ EVnerdGene Well, you know the old saying about assuming...! The letterhead only indicates that this is an issue raised by a member of a Senate committee, it certainly doesn't indicate any level of bi-partisan support of any individual committee members. But let's examine the basis for your accusation of "sleaze" ? I think you would agree that the term "sleaze" is a vague term, and fails to identify the actual basis of your complaint. If I understand you correctly, you seem to have two principal accusations: 1) Improper and corrupt actions by a senior public servant at the behest of businessman, who is now a candidate for high public office. 2) You dislike the Immigration policies of the US Government. Taking the second issue first, no matter how you may disagree with the lawful policies of the government, it's neither dishonest, improper, and certainly not "sleaze" for others to lawfully take advantage of those policies. It's your democratic right to campaign to change those policies, but not to call others sleazy for obeying a law or participating in a lawful programme, simply because you don't agree. That leaves only the question of the evidence for the first accusation. I would contend that even if Senator Grassley's accusations are accepted in full, where is the wrong doing ? Senator Grassley is careful to avoid Joe McCarthy style wild accusations, relying instead on distortions and insinuations, posed as questions. But, I ask you, where is the evidence of any wrong doing, unlawful activity, or corrupt practice by Terry McAuliffe, Anthony Rodham, or Director Mayorkas ? There is no evidence of "Sleaze" by any participant in this non-issue, but it's not inaccurate to describe Senator Charles Grassley actions as those of an opportunistic political Humbug !
      raktmn
      • 8 Months Ago
      As typical, I'm usually the only one to read the primary source data (both the 94 pages provided here, plus the transcript of the hearing referencd). This is a case of people in the green industry trying to use the exact same program that the leader of Fox News used to get his citizenship, so nothing untoward is going on (unless you want to apply the same standard to Fox News' founder) The accusation is that Director Mayorkas "in any way attempt[ed] to expedite" anything on behalf of McAuliffe. To make it clear, McAuliffe is not accused of any wrong-doing. Grassley is making an accusation that Mayorkas attempted to expidite things. As proof, Grassley puts in a bunch of emails with requests for status only, that start with these exact phrases: "there is no expidite request here" "ETA based upon non-expedite timeframes" "I want to make sure we are providing customer service consistent with our standards but that we are not providing any preferential treatment" The response from the career bureaucrat working the cases is basically that it takes us 6 months to do these, and it has only been 4 months, and then acts offended that someone might dare ask for a status update after only 4 months. Then everything goes silent in the emails, with absolutely no request to expedite anything. Then the applications hit approach their 1 year aniversary after submission. At this point, it is clear that nothing can be "expedited" because they are already way past the 6 months everyone was told it took. At that point, it gets pointed out that the published expected turn around time is now 5 months, and these cases are twice that point. It is pointed out that this is a substandard response time. It is impossible to expedite something that is already later than published times. At this point, the Director's people below him start pushing the career bureaucrat to actually live up to the published turn-around times. Basically, he's being accused of doing a crappy job (maybe rightfully?). His response is to be a whistleblower, because he was butthurt. There was no request to expedite. That was very clear. What there was in this case, was bureaucratic delays, and a career bureaucrat took it personally when these gross delays beyond published response times were pointed out. But Grassley appears to intentionally mix the timeline, and pretend that something had been requested to be expedited earlier than the published times, when in fact the cases went well beyond published customer service times. If anyone wants to read everything themselves to confirm, be aware that the email posts are not in any way in cronological order. In order to understand the timeline, you have to open multiple screens and sort the attachments by order yourself, and then read from the bottom of each chain. If you make the mistake of reading from the top, straight down, you will get just as confused as Grassley wants you to be confused.
        EZEE
        • 8 Months Ago
        @raktmn
        I started to read the 94 pages, but got bored, so I stopped. The sad part is, ABG, since they post on this stuff, should do that analysis, because, well they brought it up in the first place. Everyone below is screaming that it is either an example of left wing or right wing sleaze (marco even picked right wing sleaze). I look at it like this: Former Clinton official running for higher public office is accused of something in his business dealings by a member of the rival party. Other various party members on both sides 17 in total was the figure - signed on. Hmmmm. At this point, I could not be more neutral than I currently am. Former politician involved in business dealings tht might be shady? Rival party trying to shoot down election of opposing party member? I so have no opinion it scares me.
          Marco Polo
          • 8 Months Ago
          @EZEE
          @ EZEE Hey ! I didn't pick any "sleaze" ! I said : "There is no evidence of "Sleaze" by any participant in this non-issue". Regrettably, this is just the normal, (if deplorable) standard of humbug that happens in every campaign !
          EZEE
          • 8 Months Ago
          @EZEE
          Whoops, my bad...
      EVnerdGene
      • 8 Months Ago
      Marco, We be censored (I gave an insightful, and thought-provoking response to your latest). Liberals always say the first amendment is the only part of the Constitution worth keeping - until you disagree with them. I'd guess bureaucrat ratbrain just couldn't handle the truth.
      Marco Polo
      • 2 Years Ago
      @ EVnerdGene I'm not intimately conversant with the entire details surrounding this matter. However, it does seem that Senator Charles Grassley's attack is little more than a desperate, and vindicative, "beat up' to undermine and sling unsubstantiated mud at a political opponent immediately prior to an election. Invoking 'Homeland Security" and constant references to "whistle-blowers", is typical of the over-hyped methods employed by this this politician who seems determined to reflect everything that wrong with the GOP currently. Senator Charles Grassley, is long on "rhetoric" , but is self-confessedly short when it comes to real support for important issues. It's typical of this Senator's level of self interest and hypocrisy that he votes against any real improvements in the benefit to returned disabled Veterans, but is all gung-ho patriotic about a meaningless "flag protection amendment ". Senator Grassley is a fierce anti-environmentalist, except when it comes to ethanol ! The explanation for this seeming anomaly, might be explained by the fact that he's from Iowa ! Senator Grassley has a talent for taking perfectly harmless, trivial inaccuracies, and perfectly normal practices, and making them seem like major corruption just long enough to provide him with an image of a tough investigative Senator, rooting out corrupt practices. In fact, he does great harm and his grandstanding attacks, while cleverly constructed, never achieve anything of real public value. He is, best described as a humbug !
      Eideard
      • 2 Years Ago
      Grassley's usual corn cob sleaze.
        EVnerdGene
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Eideard
        Q: So if you call sleaze a sleaze it makes you a sleaze ? A: Only if you're a sleaze that defends sleaze.
      raktmn
      • 8 Months Ago
      Every single one of the 911 hijackers entered the United States LEGALLY. A few technically had overstayed visas, in that their applications for extensions had not yet been approved ironically due to slow processing. Some even had their extensions approved after 911. But all of them had full lawful authorization to enter the United States. But heck, don't let things like facts get in the way of a good rant....
      Spec
      • 8 Months Ago
      The law allows people to basically buy Visas if they invest a large amount of money. They shouldn't get any special treatment but if they invest the money they will get a Visa. Of course the opposing candidate has received thousands of dollars in gifts from a donor. So both candidates have issues here.
        raktmn
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Spec
        Even Grassley isn't accusing McAuliffe of doing anything illegal. He is trying to say somebody else did something wrong, and then trying to paint McAuliffe as guilty by association.
      EVnerdGene
      • 2 Years Ago
      sleaze
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X