Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
I guess I should not be surprised anymore, but it still saddens me to read that our old friend, Halliburton, has pled guilty to destroying evidence concerning their participation in the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and the subsequent environmental disaster in 2010. If they pled guilty why should I be upset? I am upset that the Department of Justice agreed to a $1.1 Billion fine instead of jail time. Once again a corporate “citizen” has committed a crime and no one is going to jail.
I understand the costs involved in taking a case of this magnitude to trial, in order to press for prison time for the culpable officers. However, if this had been an individual would the Justice Department have balked at trying to get a conviction and jail time? I am not the only one concerned with the Justice Department’s soft handling of corporate criminals.
“David Uhlmann, an University of Michigan environmental law professor and former chief of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environmental Crimes Section, said the settlement raises questions about the absence of criminal charges against the company.
“Halliburton did not admit negligence in today’s settlement but the fact that they agreed to pay over $1 billion raises anew questions about why the Justice Department did not charge the company criminally for its role in causing the Gulf oil spill,” Uhlmann said in an email reply to USA TODAY questions about the settlement.” Reader Supported News
I can’t blame Halliburton for working to get a fine instead of jail time, but how can we stop corporate criminals from breaking the law in the future when the worst case scenario for them is the payment of a fine that could be tax-deductible? Halliburton was also looking at more serious financial uncertainty if it had not reached a settlement because of its role in the Deepwater Horizon fiasco and would have had to deal with the multiple BP claimants. Wouldn’t that give the Justice Department more bargaining power to insist on some jail time?
“With the agreement, Halliburton removes itself from future liability regarding legal claims filed on behalf of thousands of fishermen, business owners and others who said their lives and livelihoods were ruined by the spill.
“Halliburton wanted out,” said LeCesne. “Since their failed cement mixture is a the epicenter of culpability in this incident, they didn’t want to take any further chances.”‘ RSN
This is not the first time that a corporate “person” has committed crimes and only had to face a fine. We have seen it in the numerous Banks who have bought their way out of criminal liability. What will it take for the Justice Department to actually push for a criminal penalty in these corporate bad actor cases?
Shouldn’t a corporation that has allegedly committed crimes run the same risk as any individual when it comes to going to jail for those crimes? This problem of allowing corporations to buy their way out of criminal prosecutions is not a new issue. According to one Harvard Law Professor, Brandon Garrett, it started after the prosecution of the Arthur Anderson case in 2002 and after the conviction was overturned on appeal, prosecutors have been hesitant to go for criminal penalties in corporate cases.
“Federal prosecutors cemented their current approach to corporate prosecutions following the Arthur Andersen trial, which took place in 2002, and which I describe in the book—the jury convicted Andersen, resulting in the collapse of the company, but the conviction was then reversed on appeal. Fearful of the backlash should more high-profile cases end in disaster, prosecutors decided to allow more companies to avoid a conviction by entering deferred and non-prosecution agreements. Those deals took off in 2003, and they first caught my attention in 2006, when just a few dozen had been entered. The new approach was firmly in place when the financial crisis hit in 2007, and perhaps as a result, some companies may have felt they could settle prosecutions as a cost of doing business.” Harvard University Press Blog
Whatever reasons the Department of Justice is relying upon to push for civil fines instead of going for criminal convictions, the result stated by Prof. Garrett above would seem to be an easy decision for large corporations. Pay some money and walk away from the crimes. With the Department of Justice playing softball on corporate crime, why should the large corporations change their ways? As you may recall, Bank of America has been cited at least 6 separate times and no one has yet gone to jail. Time for a change in the Justice Department’s approach, don’t you think?
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
Aridog, I PRAY to be one some of these folks blacklist. But, they apparently don’t have the self esteem or self discipline to have one. I would blacklist me if I were some of them. I think it is must be love??
Bettykath,
You know what’s happening. Someone is trying to drive me away from this blog. Some people can’t abide those who have a different view of issues than they. They have no intelligent argument to put forth so they make accusations against and disparage those who aren’t members of their echo chamber. It’s all so transparent.
Subject: “Blacklists” …. yep, I have one too, not very extensive and not politically defined, however. My list covers a wide range of blogs and not all on my list appear everywhere. I am also quite sure I am on several “blacklists” of others here and there, if not to ignore (which I’d prefer) then to disparage with vapid illusory commentary. Summary of my line of reasoning…
1. Those who make my “blacklist” are those who respond to any criticism with frenetic emotional comments, or actions off line, where they are likely to over elaborate without recourse. I have received “shrieking” emails from some of these folks over the years…which I ignore.
2. Essentially, my blacklist just means scroll over & ignore. Not because I disagree with them, but simply because they have not engaged forthrightly in the past, so why bother. I mess up now and then and respond, never to any good result.
3. Also those who make comments purely to aggravate others, like one guy, a principal from another blog who I try to ignore always because he’s a demonstrated liar, period, no misrepresentation involved..e.g., he makes blatant untruthful statements about other commenter. He has not shown up here to my knowledge.
4. Also those who essentially call others liars by passive aggressive terms like “misrepresented” usually stated redundantly, and refuse to entertain any explanation. For example when I screwed up and made an unclear statement without the necessary qualifications in my mind that made it so, one commenter who doubtless would be at adds with me on most topics, did entertain the idea and recommended a change that would have made the concept better…and he was right. I can accept discussion and suggestions, we learn that way to we not? I am rather old but I can still learn. I tried to respond to the helpful commenter, but the black hole ate it.
5. Finally, a lessor category on my list are those who I ask a forthright question of based upon their comment(s) and get no response. I still read them, but won’t likely engage much after being ignored a few times. I’m new here, so so far I’ve only identified a couple of these by-pass after reading folks….who seem to not want to discuss their narrative only assert it.
I did screw up and addressed one of my blacklist individuals (not one of those in #5 above) and got a comment deleted for it. I apologized for it openly. Normally anyone on my black list are automatic scroll overs.
Like a Phoenix, bettykath has once again returned from the self proclaimed ashes!! Instead of whining, there’s a substantive post that just went up on hate crimes. Why don’t you saunter over there, bettykath. And, lets have a substantive discussion. The old days are not coming back. The echo chamber is gone. When you all come to grips w/ that we can hopefully get back to having spirited discussions on substance. No, go over there and make the case for white guilt err, privilege!!
Elaine, Aridog and I have an intelligent conversation going on over on the cigarette thread. You want to come over and snipe @ that one also? It’s sad to see what you’ve become here.
I come to this blog b/c it usually has one or two topics, sometimes more, in which I’m interested. It isn’t just the initial post, but the comments that I find interesting. Some comments are in line with my thinking, some are not, but most tend to be informative and broaden my understanding of the topic.
However, interspersed among the comments are many comments that are passive/aggressive personal attacks, trolls, or negative characterizations of one or more commentors. Just because no specific person is named it doesn’t mean that the comments are civil. They are NOT civil. They are an unnecessary negative distraction. They are too numerous to just ignore.
It’s very disappointing that JT doesn’t see how distracting, and even destructive, that these comments are. They are personal attacks and should not be allowed. I would love to continue to come to this blog, but its value is in the high quality of most of the comments. Unfortunately, the personal attacks/trolls/negative characterizations that are too numerous to ignore make it not worth my time.
Following are the negative personal comments from this thread alone, some addressed to specific individuals:
“You just came from an elite and hilarious echo chamber.”
“Folks like yourself don’t like being challenged.”
“don’t come here and whine. ”
“If the fact that non liberals don’t run this place like they used to bothers you ….”
“This place was run by liberals prior to the changes in January.” (bragging about running people off?)
“You know the meme, CHENEY = Halliburton. Cheney is a bogeyman w/ the old folks here.”
“The former ruling class don’t like it.”
Assertion: “Teachers don’t like the positive changes being made in education to make schools student centered. Teachers liked having free reign. Just like the Guest Bloggers here did. Life is always about control. The best situations are always when there’s balance, something we now have.”
Objection: “Will the personal attacks never cease? I have just as much right to express my opinion and to comment as I see fit as any other individual who frequents this blog…without having comments made about me. It appears some people are obsessed with and remain fixated on me even though I am no longer a weekend contributor. ”
Response: “LOL”
“The vast majority love balance. Those on both extremes loathe it. They want to control everything.”
“That will open eyes. Maybe not yours, but people not blinded by partisanship, …”
“If you’re dishonest, intellectually or otherwise, or if you prove to be a cultist, you will go on the “Do not respond” list.” [a reminder that “we” are frequently called cultists and dishonest, intellectually or otherwise]
“Just people from the Dark Ages, angry that they lost their echo chamber. ”
“Angry curmudgeons wanting us to ‘get off my lawn.’ ”
“No substance. Just sniping. That’s why I love the fact that everything is written and stored in archives. That’s why I encourage newcomers to read the archives. But, the old regime has given the thoughtful Aridog all he needs to know on this thread. Even a “dingbat” can see their angry and vapid comments for what they are. ” [many recommendations that newcomers check the archives to dredge up old disagreements.]
Pete,
See what you started? For shame! The broken record has started playing the same old monotonous tune again.
Aridog is one “dingbats” I invited over from another website. A college educated veteran. A man who lives in a US Muslim community and understands them better than anyone here. A man who fights cancer w/ dignity and humor. A man who just wrote a thoughtful comment w/ suggestions.
No, look @ the angry has been comments. No substance. Just sniping. That’s why I love the fact that everything is written and stored in archives. That’s why I encourage newcomers to read the archives. But, the old regime has given the thoughtful Aridog all he needs to know on this thread. Even a “dingbat” can see their angry and vapid comments for what they are.
Let me ask one more time.
Can anyone more familiar than I am with S J Res. 19 (text here) as revised 17 July 2014, with deletions and condensed snytax, explain to me how it will assure campaign reform?
It seem vague to me now. Legislation, especially Constitutional Amendments that are vague usually cause more trouble than they remedy. However, I do like the federalism aspects of the bill, where power is re-designated to the states vis a vis state and local elections. I find fault in the bill because it does not prohibit states from dividing their Presidential electors proportionate to their returns. Am I wrong on that, and if so, where?
I will listen….to answers proposed for both general questions above.
I like the concept that Darren says is used in Washington State. Especially the one topic legislation part, which in my opinion, would save us a ton of diversionary and distracting nonsense riders and unrelated amendments. Legislative on topic riders and amendments that are “earmarks” do serve a purpose and that is to more stringently restrict appropriate diversions, but they would stay because they are on topic of the legislation per se. There are times when (on topic) earmarks are necessary based upon my federal and military experience with appropriations and how they can be diluted and dispersed as not intended.
Finally, while we’re at “reforming” campaign finance, how about we address the idea of “reforming” zero base budgeting in another bill, where unexpended appropriated funds are spent unnecessarily due to an expiration date? I’ve seen first hand how this can be manipulated between agencies to hide the money and return it later. I think we need to reconsider appropriate expiration dates and applications of the funds, and close the loophole that fogs the issue.
Again, I will listen to explanations of why this system should remain unchanged, if someone has one.
Paul, Just people from the Dark Ages, angry that they lost their echo chamber. Here’s the funny part. They constructed an “elite” echo chamber w/ the old guard. It’s hilarious. “Be careful what you wish for.” Angry curmudgeons wanting us to “get off my lawn.”
Pete,
You got it! The modus operandi is “Speak loudly and carry a big schtick.”
😉
Elaine – good of you to be co-dependent of pete.
You can’t send a legal fiction to prison. If you want to charge them civilly with a mere preponderance of the evidence, you can’t send ANYONE to jail.
If you want to send employees or directors of a company to prison, you need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt directly connected to the employees, and you’ll have a hard time overcoming attorney-client privilege, especially if the corporation’s attorneys did the internal investigation.
Bite the bullet anti-Halliburtonites, maybe Dick Cheney used some Halliburton satellite tracking assets to trail those errant Fast ‘n Furious guns gone into gangland hands in Mexico, connected them to the passthrough of 85,000 juvees as hush money, and he put the big clandestine intelligence squeeze on Holder.
Bad Karma, Eric. As sure as gravity, it get’s you every time. Watch out below.
docmadison
sheriff nikki and paul are kinda the “dynamic duo” around here in turleyville.
they’re fun to watch from time to time but their schtick does get old.
nikki is the greeter and invites dingbats over from other sites. has trouble seeing though, that big brown nose tends to get in the way. when he gets in over his head he goes crying to the professor about getting picked on, then brags how he “won”.
paul is the “brains” of the act. mostly strawmen and assassination by association.
by all means try to make his “list”, it’s kinda fun.
pete – great little ad hominem attack there.
The Senate allowed the constitutional amendment on campaign reform to go forward. The floor vote is slated for Thursday.
Call your Senators! or quit your bitchin’.
Paul,
Where do I err?
Nick proudly hails his Blacklist. Should his BlackList not be mentioned? Does Nick not often/always caution newcomers and others about the wisdom of following the Spinelli Method of the Blacklist.
Where is the attack in asking how many are on his Blacklist? Seems a reasonable question that Nick will proudly answer. He never seems reluctant to inform all of us that he is adding another to the Dreaded BlackList.
Does Nick know my position on Nader or Gore or has he fabricated it? Is it an attack to ask if Nick is noted for irony? You’re mighty frail, if you consider that an attack.
Ad hominium? I think I only addressed that which Nick has stated, and re-stated, and reminded us again and again that there are Records and Archives of same.
In fact, is there ANYTHING new from Nick? cultist, fat Al Gore, intellectual dishonesty, BlackLists, the mean old people from the bad old days, his LaMar Cranston ability to read people from his years sitting in cars filming people?
Where is the err, Paul, the err?
Airdog.
Washington’s constitution mandates that legislation consist of single topic bills. Of course there can be elements within the bill but they must be confined to the topic generally.
The effect this has is to prevent pork barrel riders or earmarks from being slipped into a bill or unrelated legislation consisting of deals made to foster the bill’s passage. The state supreme court has been very strong on preserving this and has invalidated even citizen’s initiatives in their entirety which violate this standard.
Our state also provides line-item veto authority in the governorship.
I wish these protections were available on the federal level.
Darren – Arizona only allows line item veto on the budget. We do have single item legislation but that has been in the courts several times and at this point there are conflicting decisions.
Docmadison, irony eludes some folks.
I have to hand it to Nick and his fail safe method of winning a debate.
1. He fabricates his opponents positions. (Nick, you missed one of my fatal flaws – I also eat small children.)
2. He terrifies and confounds offenders by creating a BlackList.
Is anyone keeping a running count of how many have made his Blacklist? Have we hit twenty yet? Is it possible that we may prevail upon Prof. Turley to publish Nick’s list? After all, no one wants to see some newcomer corrupted by corresponding with such black-hearted knaves.
Is Nick noted for his irony?
docmadison – nice Alinsky style ad hominem attack on Nick.
I donno Nick, I kind of like DocMadison’s idea of public funding (tax check offs)…but I’d include individual personal funding as well, with limits similar to today ($2800 I think). Main reason is that many voters do not pay any income taxes. I don’t have much use for union, corporate, or PAC funding en mass. Groups that want influence should be able to motivate their memberships to step up individually. Then again I may be just dreaming…one thing certain SJ Res. 19 does nothing, zip, nada for at least 10 years or so, if ever.
Unfortunately, SJ Res. 19 doesn’t do any of those things cited a reasons to enact it. It is vague and sloppy at best. I like short legislation focused on one thing, but its focus falls short unless I just don’t get it. I will listen to any explanations of what I am missing.
Oh, you’re on probation. If you’re dishonest, intellectually or otherwise, or if you prove to be a cultist, you will go on the “Do not respond” list. Good luck.