tv Justice With Judge Jeanine FOX News November 27, 2011 1:00am-2:00am PST
tonight on "justice." members of congress making a financial killing while in office. is it legal? and then -- >> the night national that li wood vanished off h her yacht wilt say they heard cries for help. why wasn't she rescued? plus, the energy secretary chu takes the blame for solyndra. is he covering for someone higher up? and one of the biggest boondoggles in america is eating up millions of your tax dollars. john stossel and i are ready to rant. coming up tonight on "justice."
a double standard in washington. members of congress engaged in congress that would land the rest of us in jail. but for them it is perfectly legal. peter schweitzer is the author of "throw them all out." it is based on the premise that members of congress are making a lot of money based upon their power inand poured concreter washington. how is that happening? >> they use it for favors or to get access to inside information. committee that deals with healthcare issues they may be privy to knowing whether the fda is going to approve a drug. they are free to trade on that information and do trade on that information.
they leverage their position in the stock market by getting access to ipos or official public offerings of stock. >> judge jeanine: that is not available to the rest of us. >> if you were a united states senator and i walked into your office with a shoe box and give you $10,000 in cash we are both going to go to jail. it is called bribery. if i walk into the same office and say senator i will give you access to ipo shares of stock and you will make $100,000 in a day that is completely legal and that goes on all the time. >> judge jeanine: if your book you talk about nancy pelosi. tell us about what happened with her with the ip os. >> hershey and her husband got access to 5,000 of visa shares in the friends and family round what is unusual about it and news week did follow-up reporting on this is that this is part of nuce week's effort
to target here to influence her on credit card legislation. they got 5,000 shares of stock for $44 a share. the next day when it went public it went up to $66 a share. literally made $100,000 in one day. >> judge jeanine: and dennis hastert as well. he starts as a wrestling coach and when retires as speaker of the house he is worth $11 million. >> if you don't have a taste for the stock market and tennis hastert didn't. he literally bought 160 acres of farmland in rural, illinois. a few months after he bought the land he literally put a $220 million ear mark into the federal highway bill to build a barbecuing bash highway right by the land that he had just bought. now, when it became publicking knowledge the new parkways going to be built he was able
to turn around and sell the land and more than doubled his money and that was courtesy of our taxpayer money and that goes on all the time as well. >> judge jeanine: i don't remember there even being an a issue about that at the time. >> there is not. >> judge jeanine: talk about on the other side of the aisle. democrats and republicans. murray pinching from new york. comes in net assets of $74,000 and four years later worth $727,000 because why? tell me? >> because of land deals. there was a land that he owns in his district. he put an ear mark to upgrade the sewer system and everything else. spiked the value of the land and he saw the benefits from it. and it is very common that this goes on. members of congress in urban districts get earmarked lands to expand rail systems.
just happens to go past the and this they own. it is all legal and a the ethics committee say as long as you can demonstrate as least one other person benefits it is okay to do this. >> if one other person benefits if you have a big family everybody can benefit. what makes me crazy about this one, murray comes back to the district and says hey, i brought all the money to the district and leaves out the fact by the way i'm improving the water and the infrastructure on my property. >> that is exactly right. rare inconvenience. kind of wonder whether he would fight for it if that was some where else in the district rather than underneath the property that he owned. >> judge jeanine: who is the absolute worst? >> hard to determine that. spencer bachus during the 2008 crisis. took the time during the storm
that was going tornado do 40 apings trades and he would literally have a briefing with the fed chairman and treasury secretary who would tell him here is how bad the situation is. he would go the next day from the private meeting and buy options to short the market. that is bet that it was going drop dramatically. he made tens of thousands of dollars doing this. he was involved in the tarp legislation. he bought options during that period. he makes his own trades. i'm mazed he found time to do anythings. >> his value goes up when the market goes down. >> you are betting against america and winning big. >> judge jeanine: and he was winning big. the scary part is that nobody is making a big issue of this. your book is unearthing a lot of this stuff that people take for granted. tell us about kerry and boehner. >> i tried to take the approach what the sec would do if they were investigating our stock
trades or somebody else's. access to information. they were very much involved in the healthcare debate and determining the fate of the legislation. and what you see is in the case of john kerry he was on a critical commit cree that helped write the legislation. it was pushing for obama care. at the same time the investment funds that he and his wife owns were massively and aggressively buying pharmaceutical stock and manufacturers of medical equipment and selling health insurance company stocks and the timing is amazing when you look at the pattern of the two. john boehner in december of 2009 a few days before the public option was killed where the government was going to offer health insurance. few days before that john boehner's investment portfolio added five health insurance company stocks. >> what is interesting is that if both sides of the aisle are doing it and youalk about boehner and kerry, it is in
peter and i are joined by brian baird, former congressman from washington and lis wheel. congress people trading on the insider information. is that legal? >> yes, it is legal. >> why? >> as long as they trade on information that they get during their job which in the cloak room as you were talking about or some where else but not from the corporation correctly it is legal. it is unethical but it is legal and should be changed. >> very unethical. >> and these guys are always pontificating about how ethical they are yet nobody is talking
about the through cover them. >> and the types that it has been brought it absolutely went no where. which i know you will get to. what is crazy to kne me about , what politician can say i voted against the bill that can't let me inside trade and you can't do it yourself. >> judge jeanine: the reason that happened is and we have a person who knows. representative baird. thank you for being with us this evening. >> my pleasure, thank you. >> for years you tried to get a law passd that would remedy this. tell me about it. >> well, indeed, just as peter said, you know, this should be illegal and i was shocked when i discovered it wasn't. there are firms in washington, d.c. called political intelligence firms. i know that sounds like an ox ioxymoron. as long as it is public information i have no problem with that.
the real value would come from nonpublic information. i began explore is this legal and sure enough as your other guests have said it is not i will heel. if we don't get the information from a company, if we just get it from inside our work in congress we can trade on it. we don't have to report our trades for more than a year. almost impossible to trace and even if you catch us it is not illegal. >> judge jeanine: you are a congress person and make a barbecuing bash decision that you want to do -- you make a decision that you want to do something about this and you draft legislation. >> we did everything right. sent letters to colleagues. talked with the committee chair. tim walz and i worked hard on this. most said not interested or it must already be illegal so we tonight have to do anything about it. the number of people said doing what you are asking us to do would be very inconvenient and i don't want to go there. >> judge jeanine: and they told that to you?
>> indeed. most members of congress are responsible ethical people but they didn't take the next step to make sure to say we need to make sure as an institution we hold each other accountable. that was a sin of omission. we will correct that, i hope. >> judge jeanine: i was a city d.a. there is freedom of information laws that applied to me disclosures that applied to me. we these generic disclosures that tell nothing, they are so broad. how do we change that? if you have the congressman who couldn't even get people to sponsor it where are we going? is there hope for us? >> i think there is hope. congressman baird was for this change before this change was cool. they had six cosponsors to the stock act when first introduced it. there are now i think close to 40 sense the 60 minutes episode and my book came out. >> the more that you write about it and we talk about it the more 60 minutes covers t is coming to the point how is a
politicks going to go home and say, no, i didn't vote for that. >> judge jeanine: they say blind trust. i didn't know about that. here is the problem with the blind trust, lis. they can discuss things with the trustee but as long as you don'tay buy it the information you learn in a closed door meeting. >> but if they pass along the information that is fine. the law needs to be changed that heighten the duty of confidentialallity that they don't have now. >> judge jeanine: i will ask all of you this. do you fear that the croneyism is to entrenched there is no way for us to get out of this? do you you have hope, peter? >> i'm an optimist by nature. i have hope in the american people. >> judge jeanine: we have hope in yourselves but what about them in congress? >> we have to make it clear that you are going to go into public service you are not going to cash in. the example i use in the book, a three star general in the
army makes less than a freshman congressman. you don't see generals running around saying i'm entitled to -- >> or buying a munitions company. mr. president, we need to go buy this place, i'm investing in munitions. first of all, thank you for what you have done. do you have any hope at all that we will be a little more ethical? >> i think it is. i think people realize now that it is a problem. it has been called to their attention. they have seen examples of abuse. before people would say this isn't a problem for criminal them, why do we need to fix it? it is a huge problem as peter and others talked about. now, i think people realize on a policy basis it needs to be fixed but at long last i think they finally get politically you don't want to go back to the constituents and say congress passed laws to require people to report their financial trades within 48 hours and we don't have to for a year. congress passed laws to make insider trading illegal, those don't apply to us. i invite them to run on that platform and see how you it
goes. >> and lis, you can show a federal prosecutor with the sec if there is a pattern of trade and that doesn't apply to them either. >> not yet. the law hasn't changed. i have hope because i think politicians want to keep their job. as much as we are making this an issue they will have to change the law. >> judge jeanine: the shame of all this is the sense of entitlement and arrogance that they the not at all embarrassed to say i want an ear mark near my property. great book. lis wiehl thanks for being with us and brian, thank you for what you have done. i think you have started something that may end up in a positive way. thank you for your service. >> i think so. thank you. the energy secretary gives excuses for giving away our money in the solyndra debacle. i'm not buying it.
>> judge jeanine: the energy secretary claims he acted with the interest of the american taxpayers when gave away a half a billion dollars of our money to solyndra. that is hogwash. >> solyndra. back in the headlines. this time, the secretary of energy testifies he is the one to blame. >> the secretary of energy, the final decisions on solyndra were mine and i made them with the best interests of the taxpayers in mind. >> judge jeanine: he says he didn't think the solar energy company would fail and the $535 million loan given to them was done without political motivation. >> and i want to be clear. over the course of solyndra's loan guarantee i did not make any decisions based on political considerations. >> judge jeanine: but.
is that true? >> it appears that companies like solyndra are leading the way. >> 2009 solyndra is the flagship in president obama's clean energy initiative. given an astounding $535 million loan of taxpayer money within two years the flagship sinks. but it seems the loan was a bad bet from the get-go. in 2009, a private credit ratings agency warns solyndra is headed for failure. the obama white house forges ahead anyway. days before the groundbreaking ceremony at solyndra's new plant the loan still hasn't receive aid proval from the office of management and budget. so administration officials press them to push things along. two days later, loan approved. the company digs itself into a hole almost immediately, bleeding money. by february this year, the company is broke. according to an administration e-mail, the optics of the solyndra failure would be bad.
so instead of letting the cap shut down, the energy department and secretary chu approve a refinancing deal worth $75 million guaranteeing that in the event of bankruptcy private investors in solyndra would be repaid before the american taxpayer. months later, solyndra declares bankruptcy, taking with it all our taxpayer money. so, is secretary chu to blame? or is he just taking the fall for the white house? peter and i are joined by representative michael burgess, republican from texas. thank you for being with us. congressman and peter, let me start actually with the both of you. chu says he was responsible. do you think that he is taking a hit for someone above him? >> congressman? >> i will go first.
i think so. he came to our committee. he said the buck stopped with him and then proceeded to pass the buck as often as he could when was asked specifically about the reference the bundler for the president and he was asked if he knew about that. he said i do now implying that he didn't know at the time. is the smartest guy in washington, d.c. as you point out. a nobel laureate. he holds the nation's nuclear secrets. he had to know what was going on and that just makes it so much worse. >> judge jeanine: meterpeter, w high up do you think this goes? >> i think it goes up very high. the way the program was structure after the 2008 election two fundraisers for obama. many of the people they raised money from came back and ended up getting these department loans and grants. this was a decision made not by the secretary of energy but
somebody high up within the obama white house and when you look at the list of who got money you have ten members of obama's 2008 financial committee and at least a dozen campaign bundlers. this is not a coincidence. >> judge jeanine: and in this case, george kaiser. the whole idea of the refinancing deal where american taxpayers are put at the end of the line behind the hedge fund guys, did he answer that question as to why he would put americans whose money it is at the back of the line and change the whole deal so there is no chance of our getting our money back, a half a billion dollars? >> lieutenan let's be clear. the language of the loan guarantee act that authorized these things in the first place specifically says you cannot subordinate the taxpayer debt to other sources and he clearly did that. he said well, i only thought it was the first financing, rehe financing was not subject to that and i have advice from a
lawyer in an e-mail that says that i didn't have to behave that way but that is prepostorrous. >> judge jeanine: seam on him. i don't know how smart he is but that seems ridiculous. do you think, peter, that the energy secretary should have seen this was is going to collapse? >> you have the office of management and budget predicting the precise date that they were going to go belly up. dunn and bradstreet. wall street wouldn't have give them the money. should he have known this? >> he should have. the people at the department of energy made these decisions in terms of not financial sound eps but in terms of what was politically expedient. >> judge jeanine: this week the labor department approving federal aid for those employees from solyndra in the amount of something like $14.3 million. i mean isn't that a predictable result of all of this disaster?
>> and the fact that the firings were held until after election day 2010. tell me this wasn't politically motivated. it clearly was political from start to finish. we need to identify there likely were sources from within the white house putting pressure on the department it of energy and that gets to the heart of why we supermode subpe white house. i don't think they have been forth come with the information that was requested. >> judge jeanine: and talking about the joe biden e-mail which is i'm going to unleash the west wing if you don't move in thing along. thank you so much for being with us this evening. coming up, the woman who says she heard natalie wood's cries for h help the night she drown. could natalie have been saved?.
let's get you back now to "justice" with judge jeanine. >> judge jeanine: could natalie wood have been rescued the night she drown? what really happened that night? november 29, 1981. actress natalie wood and her husband robert wagner are partying on their yacht le splendour. moored in a small cluster of boats 100-yards off the catalina islands. after a long night of drinking things get tense. wagner and wood are heard arguing in their cab bin. sometime around 11:00 p.m. wagner tells the boat captain that natalie is missing. the men check the entire boat and she is no where to be found. but instead of searching the water or contacting the coast guard wagner decides to wait. finally at 1:30 he calls harbor
patrol to report someone is missing. at 7:45 a.m. searchers find natalie's body floating in a shallow lagoon a mile from the splendour. wagner tells police he believes natalie accidentally slipped and fell overboard. davern concurs. her death ruled an accidental drowning and the case closed. now, after 30 years there is new evidence so compelling that los angeles county sheriff's office is reopening the investigation. >> recently we have received information which we felt was substantial enough to make us take another look at this case. >> judge jeanine: information in a 17--page report revealed chilling new details of what happened that night. dennis davern now says he heard natalie and robert wagner heatedly arguing on the rear deck of the boat just before natalie vanished and the report
cites witnesses. >> i heard a woman calling for h help. help me i'm drowning. >> the cries for help continued for 20 minutes. marilyn wayne said she and her boyfriend heard a man's voice saying hold on we're coming to get you. >> we called harbor patrol several times and no one ever answered. at 11:25 call for help ceased. >> was that natalie wood they heard in the water that night? will this new evidence result in charges in the case? all right. dwayne rasher was the lead detective in the original investigation. marilyn wayne was near the splendour when natalie drown. you said you heard a woman crying for help. you and your are boyfriend, i believe. what did you do? >> well, we went up to the top
deck tried to locate where the calls were coming from. kind of got a bead on they were coming from our -- well, the 9:00 position on a clock and we were the 12:00 position. tried to get some information from the person yelling other than somebody help me please help me i'm drowning but that was all that kept being repeated. >> judge jeanine: and what did you do when you heard a woman say help me, i'm drowning? what did you do? >> well, the confusion was overwhelming. first when we couldn't get her to respond in any other way, my host went downstairs and called the harbor patrol. and they never answered. they never answered the phone. >> judge jeanine: and what time did he call the harbor patrol? >> it was five minutes after 11:00 when we first heard her
screaming for help. he called at about 12 minutes after 11:00. >> judge jeanine: all right. did you ever tell this to police, marilyn? >> i don't have any recollection of ever, ever talking to the police. >> judge jeanine: you don't? wouldn't that have been normal? i mean wouldn't someone who heard a woman crying for help and then you hear that natalie wood had died that night or drown that night, wouldn't you have tried to get in touch with them? >> there are several reasons why i didn't. for one thing, the police never seemed to be interested in contacting me. >> judge jeanine: how would they know about you, marilyn, unless you told them you knew something? >> because a gentleman named love, i don't know his first name, was right at my office monday morning and he did the first interview and my last interview until i did the vanity fair one in my office and i told them everything.
>> was he in law enforcement this guy named love? >> no. mr. love was a reporter for the "l. a. times" l.a. times. >> judge jeanine: did you interview marilyn? >> did i. >> you seem to recall it and so marilyn you are saying when says he interviewed you that that is not true? >> i don't remember it. i honest to god don't. he said that for years and i said for years i was never interviewed. the only thing i can think of is maybe if i took a lie detector test. >> judge jeanine: there is a difference between i don't remember and no, he didn't talk to me. detective, you spoke to robert wagner. why didn't he search for his wife? >> he did search for her. people who say he didn't, it is ridiculous. he did search for her. >> judge jeanine: marilyn says she heard the cries a little after 11:00 and we all agree his call was not until 1:30.
>> marilyn told me the first time i talked to her that she thought she heard the type of cries and they didn't go help. this of just remained on their boat. when robert wagner and the captain realized that natalie was missing they called ashore and people were monitoring the emergency radio stations started to help search right there and at it she actually thought she went ashore in the dingy. >> detective dark yo, did you e or know that she was petrified of the water? >> i think she was working on trying to secure the dinghy to the back of their boat. >> didn't robert wagner say to you that he thought she went to shore and that is why he asked for help? >> that is what he said.
it was missing and she was missing. theses assumed she went back to ore to the restaurant. he called right then to to the restaurant and found out it was closed to as certain if she was around. they began a ground search. >> what about the fact that he lied to you about his breaking the wine bottle and he admitted to the fact that he had a big fight with her. don't you think he lied to you? >> maybe about the bottle but i don't think he had a big fight. >> he just broke the wine bottle because he wanted to make a point? >> well, possibly, yes. because the discussion that i learned from all three of them immediately after this incident happened was the fact that they had had an argument about her being away from home too much and she was working -- >> judge jeanine: they admit that wasn't the case. i have to thank you, dwayne and marilyn. thanks for being with us. up next, at the end of this investigation, could robert wagner be facing charg capital one's new cash rewards card gives you a 50% annual bonus! so you earn 50% more cash. according to research, everybody likes more cash.
well, almost everybody... ♪ would you like 50% more cash? no! but it's more money. [ male announcer ] the new capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. what's in your wallet? woah! [ giggles ] morning because my back hurt so bad. the sleep number bed conforms to you. i wake up in the morning with no back pain. i can adjust it if i need to...if my back's a little more sore. and by the time i get up in the morning, i feel great! if you have back pain, toss and turn at night or wake up tired with no energy, the sleep number bed could be your solution. the sleep number bed's secret is it's air chambers which provide ideal support and put you in control of the firmness. and the bed is perfect for couples because each side adjusts independently to their unique sleep number. here's what clinical research has found:
93% of participants experienced back-pain relief. 90% reported reduced aches and pains. 87% fell asleep faster and enjoyed more deep sleep. for study summaries, call this number now. we'll include a free dvd and brochure about the sleep number bed including prices, and models plus a free $50 savings card. and how about this? steel springs can cause uncomfortable pressure points. but the sleep number bed contours to your body. imagine how good you'll feel when your muscles relax and you fall into a deep sleep! i'm not just a back surgeon, i'm also a back patient. i sleep on the sleep number bed myseland i highly recommend it to all of my patients. need another reason to call? the sleep number bed costs about the same as an innerspring but lasts twice as long. so if you want to sleep better or find relief for your bad back, call now. call the number on your screen for your free
investigators taking a fresh new look at the drowning of natalie wood. dr. michael baden forensic pathologist is with us as well as arthur adella. do you think there is a chance that they will ex-ume natalie wood's body and what might they find out that they couldn't have found out 30 years ago? >> i think that there is very little chance that there will be an exhumeiation because
downing has been established. they could find in the exhumation evidence of drowning but that is not an issue. did she push did she fall accidentally. none of this discussion addresses that. even if there is a moral lapse in not going to rescue natalie the cause of death remains accidental drowning. >> judge jeanine: one of the concerns that i have, doctor, is the fact that they suspected no foul play. i mean, you know, you you want to talk accident how come she has got these bruises on her wrists. serious stuff, doctor, wouldn't you agree? >> well, i think the bruises on the wrist raise some issues but there was a thorough autopsy done and 30 years ago with all that a is known including the bruises on the wrist the determination was made that she accidentally drown. something has to come forth now from a witness that i saw
somebody push her into the water to change that because an exhumation would want that judgment. >> one of the things i'm fascinated at it the fact of the stomach contents because we know exactly what time she had dinner and what time they got back to the boat. can the stomach contents tell us what time she died? >> yes, her stomach was filled with food that was partially digested. that would mean she died soon after she finished eating. and that will be helpful in determining when she died. >> judge jeanine: but look, if we know she got back to the splendour at 10:30 and had been eating and had dinner before that and then it is not until 1:30 that he calls, three hours later and most of the food is digested, what does that tell you? >> well, it tells us that since
the digested food is still all in the stomach that she died maybe less than two hours after eating, after finishing eating. >> judge jeanine: if she dies less than two hours after she finishes eating at the very best for robert wagner that is 12:30. he doesn't call until 1:30. doesn't that corroborate dennis davern saying leave her in the water we'll teach her a lesson. arthur, i will ask you that one. >> you are the d.a. if your detectives brought you you a case that is 30 years old and the best that you have got is the contents of food in her stomach and how long to take to be digested you can't make a leap in front of a jury that means he pushed her as opposed to her accidentally falling in. >> judge jeanine: 30 years later what are the chances legally? >> in the state of california
only first-degree murder, intentional murder has zero statute of limitations. if they found that buy accident he pushed her or -- by accident he pushed her wanted to scare her and threw you her in the water and she died, the statute of limitations is gone. >> judge jeanine: and that means he can't be prosecuted for anything other than intentional murder. todoctor? >> i respectfully disagree with the famous attorney aidala. as he said we can't tell from all of this discussion whether she was pushed or whether she fell accidentally and we can't tell that any more than we could 30 years guy if this was a fresh case. if the medical examiner says that the cause of death was drowning but we can't tell whether she was pushed it would either be called accidental or undetermined. >> i would like to know what you would have done with the wounds, judge jeanine. why are the bruises there? come on.
>> judge jeanine: by the way, they didn't do any of the finger nail take scrapings underneath. thank you so much for being with us. now, the department of energy gives our money away. john stossel and i are going to john stossel and i are going to get to the bottom of this and ( phone ringing ) okay... uhh. the bad news, it's probably totaled. the good news is, you don't have to pay your deducble. with vanishing deductible from nationwide insurance, you got $100 off for every year of safe driving, so now your deductible is zero.
you think the debacle of solyndra is bad? that is just the tip of the iceberg. john stossel is the host of stossel on the fox business network. john, thanks for being with us this evening. >> judge. >> judge jeanine: i got a real issue. it is the department of energy. 171 billion as of two years ago. what do they have to show for it? do we even need this joint? >> john: well, we need part of it because they manage the nuclear weapons but we could
tiv that to the defense department and get rid of all this boondoggle. and you are right, solyndra was big. a lot of none money. half a billion dollars. sin fuels under carter. it is bipartisan under president nixon there was the clinch river breeder reactor. didn't work. people say we needed an energy policy in this country so you have to have the wisest people in washington make the decisions. we have an energy policy called the free market. if it is a good idea people will in jest their own money. >> judge jeanine: should the department of energy and all these, how to we have this nobel science winner, should they even be involved in sending our money to corporations who should by on wall street picking up money to start their companies? are we venture capitalists? >> the assumption is that he is a smart guy but smarter than
all these geniuses trying to make money. not a chance. >> judge jeanine: not so smart. he didn't even listen to his own dartment of energy when they said solyndra is going belly up. he didn't listen to omb or any of them. >> john: by then he already invested. france did it. they gave everyone a home computer threw out the phone books. >> that is good, everybody got one. this is my money and your money and it is going to bundlers for campaign contributions. come on. you admit -- >> john: robert f. kennedy has a company that got a billion dollars loan. this gila trashes me and called me a corporate toady, he is using the system. it is possible global warming is a real threat. if that is true, have a carbon tax and then let the market figure out which is the best way to meet it. the idea he that these guys know which companies to give to is nonsense and the companies
inned stead of trying to find the best solar collector try to find the best lawyer who is best at sucking up to the politicians. >> judge jeanine: and the whole id of giving money under the gaze of stimulus money, did is going to create jobs. we have this company, have you looked at that one? >> run by a russian guy. most of their business that they got i foregoat to how many millions for is in the united states. but the stimulus nonsense, it true, it will create jobs. they took money from over here and a suddenly those people don't have jobs. >> judge jeanine: wasn't that particular loan, wasn't that to -- if the department of energy if the whole idea is to create, you know, beneficial standards and to check emissions and all that stuff why would we be paying them to make steel when we already have
other companies making steel? what are they doing that is new and efficient. >> they are sitting in washington, looking at the data. they think hey, this company has an idea we like. it doesn't matter that it is headed by some russian guy and we don't know if he is honest or not but this is the best idea we going to invest in that. >> judge jeanine: so we are going to invest in something that will add jobs but maybe take away jobs from another company making steel, an american company making steel that is hog wash john and you know it. >> in this studio was t. boone pickens that i broke some class to make the point that creates jobs for a glassmaker. the unseen part what you were going to do with that money you are now not going do and that takes away jobs some where else. >> judge jeanine: the department of energy, what have they done other than change light bulbs, what have they done? >> managed the nuclear stockpile. the billions of dollars on
making bad bets. they do have some stuff to show for it. >> judge jeanine: like what? >> well, i'm not ready to produce -- >> judge jeanine: it's the light bulb. solyndra went to hell and right now we have this company. >> clean coal went to hell. hydrogen car. have they succeeded there? i covered one story the serious materials company. they make windows. president obama praised the company. vice president biden went to the company to praise them. are the windows so superior they get all the praise and money? no. someone who works there was married to somebody in the energy department. >> judge jeanine: they aren't venture capitalists. the companies go to wall street ajdabiya wall street knows no and wall street knows not to bid on them. >> there are tomorrow lawyers, how about that? >> judge jeanine: that has nothing to do with it. thanks, john, for being with