Conservatives push for Bill that would view Corporate Crimes as Honest Mistakes

[Sonikku]

I guess I can see why some of the conservative posters in P and N seem to think this board is so pro liberal. With threads like this, the hardline conservatives tend to be an endangered species.

 

[BoberFett]

I guess I can see why some of the conservative posters in P and N seem to think this board is so pro liberal. With threads like this, the hardline conservatives tend to be an endangered species.

No, the reason is that it IS a "liberal" forum. You start dozens upon dozens of threads, mostly faux outrage.

That's also why my first inclination when seeing that you started this thread was "LOL, yet another faux outrage post by that idiot Indus."

I'd like to understand the issue better, but HuffPo, in all it's left-wing glory, posted its own outrage story without any of those pesky details or facts. Guess I'll have to find actual information about the requested change the law before I get all red-faced about it.


Edit: Forgot to put "liberal" in quotes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, I wish so bad Colorado was an open primary state, I know lots of people are against open primary, but I don't like being forced into party affiliation as I don't think either one represents the middle class. Sanders is an Indy and I hate that he has to run in a Democrat ticket, I know why he is doing it, but I wish we were not so party minded here and he could win under Indy for being the best candidate.

Open primaries just encourage false flag voting. If a political party wants to run a candidate under their banner they should be free to do so w/o interference. A right to self determination. If you're not a Party member it's only right that you have no say.

Registering as a party member is no huge commitment. I think there are deadlines prior to elections in some places but you can basically change it at will.

Or would you just feel icky being registered as a dirty Democrat?

It's not quite like being young & foolish enough to register as a Communist in 1968, is it?

 

[Sonikku]

No, the reason is that it IS a "liberal" forum. You start dozens upon dozens of threads, mostly faux outrage.

That's also why my first inclination when seeing that you started this thread was "LOL, yet another faux outrage post by that idiot Indus."

I'd like to understand the issue better, but HuffPo, in all it's left-wing glory, posted its own outrage story without any of those pesky details or facts. Guess I'll have to find actual information about the requested change the law before I get all red-faced about it.


Edit: Forgot to put "liberal" in quotes.

I start dozens upon dozens of faux outrage threads? What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Jhhnn]

I start dozens upon dozens of faux outrage threads? What the hell are you talking about?

We know you do, ones about Birth certs, arming Mexican cartels, defending old right wing ranchers who've mooched off the govt for decades, evil IRS repressing poor, poor billionaires, Benghazi, Jade Helm, baby parts & even Hillary's email.

It's all Obama's fault, anyway, right?

 

[trenchfoot]

I wish the Repubs in Congress would care as much for the middle class and the poor as they do for Wall St.

I also wish Trump wins the Repub nomination and Sanders for the Dems.

Howz'zat fer wishful thinking?

 

[dank69]

I can understand your fears for sure given your family history, but IMO Bush pretty much set it in place that the Repubs will not be in the oval office again for a long time, it will basically take a huge blunder that shifts the pendulum or of course the Dems biggest weakness, poor voter turnout.

If Millennials would just friggin vote the polls show that Sanders would actually have no problem. With mail in ballots now they don't even have to leave moms basement either 😉

I don't even think Trump will get the nod anyway, I've actually been a part of the polling process personally and it is very inaccurate compared to what happens in the booth. On top of that they start in Iowa, who is tied for the second worst record for picking US presidents. Right now what I think we have is a bunch of sensationalism around him right now because he is a polarizing person and that sells to the fear and angry bases in this country. Carson is now diving then cruz was rising now it's rubio. Either way, I cannot see even a 1% chance of whoever it is getting in because of what I stated earlier, plus in the last 8 years the shift we have seen, GenX and Millennials vote Dem more often. Muslim, Hispanic and other immigrant population is growing rapidly in the last 10 years and they mostly vote Dem also.

That is why I think it is such a shame to miss the opportunity to vote for the BEST candidate rather than a safe one.. there is no need to be safe anymore because the fears are simply unfounded now. Redistricting might get them congress and senate spots but it isn't going to work on the presidency. If I'm wrong I'll eat some serious crow and probably accelerate my application to live in New Zealand, but I really just don't see it and exactly why I don't give much time to that failed and dying party.

edit: Thanks for the link, I'll check it out 🙂

While I hope Sanders wins it doesn't really matter. The GOP has the HOR on lockdown until the next census at least. 🙁

 

[Sonikku]

While I hope Sanders wins it doesn't really matter. The GOP has the HOR on lockdown until the Dems get as good at gerrymandering.

More overall votes for Dems in the House, but less representation than the Repubs. ftfy.

 

[TheSlamma]

Open primaries just encourage false flag voting. If a political party wants to run a candidate under their banner they should be free to do so w/o interference. A right to self determination. If you're not a Party member it's only right that you have no say.

Registering as a party member is no huge commitment. I think there are deadlines prior to elections in some places but you can basically change it at will.

Or would you just feel icky being registered as a dirty Democrat?

It's not quite like being young & foolish enough to register as a Communist in 1968, is it?

I already told you, neither one represents the middle class which is the only thing I can support.

You need to start reading the things that you just got done quoting. This is from my post that you JUST quoted "but I don't like being forced into party affiliation as I don't think either one represents the middle class"

Seriously, what is your problem? What job could someone possibly hold if they can't discus what they just read?

I'm not even going to comment on how you want to restrict peoples voting rights.

 

[TheSlamma]

While I hope Sanders wins it doesn't really matter. The GOP has the HOR on lockdown until the next census at least. 🙁

At least as Commander in Chief he could get us out of this middle east hornets nest swatting which is just creating new extremist groups every 10 years. For me that is 60% of what I want a president to do right now, the other big things he could accomplish that Obama didn't would be to see Mike Taylor and Loretta Lynch replaced by appointees who represent American humans beings and not law enforcement agencies and corporations.

 

[BoberFett]

I start dozens upon dozens of faux outrage threads? What the hell are you talking about?

Search for threads started by you, dumbass. Dozens of threads for you to pretend you're outraged.

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree with it in part. The current standard is stupid, you either go with a mens rea standard like this, or take the Navy approach that the ship captain is 100% responsible for whatever happens on his vessel regardless of his knowledge of it or not. The current status quo is a jumbled mess which gives too much discretion to federal appointees to retroactively decide what conduct should be prosecuted and is prime opportunity for that decision to be made on political grounds. The idea that "setting high metrics for subordinates to meet" implies the CEO is culpable for criminal acts of their underlings is fucking Orwellian thought police shit that we should be ashamed was ever thought of as proper conduct by the Department of Justice.

Complex statutory schemes with varying mental statement requirements, and broad prosecutorial discretion, are the norm in any criminal code, not just with respect to corporate crime. In the real world, there are degrees of culpability less than having specific intent. So why when there is an unintentional killing, for example, do we have the option of charging for manslaughter (with a lesser penalty), but for corporate crimes it must be an all or nothing? Why do we need a "simpler" standard when it comes to corporate crime, and why is the GOP pushing this issue specifically?

 

[glenn1]

Complex statutory schemes with varying mental statement requirements, and broad prosecutorial discretion, are the norm in any criminal code, not just with respect to corporate crime. In the real world, there are degrees of culpability less than having specific intent. So why when there is an unintentional killing, for example, do we have the option of charging for manslaughter (with a lesser penalty), but for corporate crimes it must be an all or nothing? Why do we need a "simpler" standard when it comes to corporate crime, and why is the GOP pushing this issue specifically?

Because those depend on the actions being committed by that person and not an agent like a employee direct report, or even an employee several layers down the corporate hierarchy. It's the executives' role to deploy the proper systems of controls like policies, audits, etc. and not personally double-check the work of every employee to see they did nothing wrong. "They should have known" (as distinguished from willful blindness) is the stuff of communist show trials and opens us to grave abuses of government power like the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Or the current desire for us to "get" senior bankers due to the 2007 financial crash for unspecified crimes.

 

[woolfe9998]

Because those depend on the actions being committed by that person and not an agent like a employee direct report, or even an employee several layers down the corporate hierarchy. It's the executives' role to deploy the proper systems of controls like policies, audits, etc. and not personally double-check the work of every employee to see they did nothing wrong. "They should have known" (as distinguished from willful blindness) is the stuff of communist show trials and opens us to grave abuses of government power like the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Or the current desire for us to "get" senior bankers due to the 2007 financial crash for unspecified crimes.

Suppose you allow someone who does not own a car to drive your car, even though you know that person had 4 prior DUI's and 2 alcohol related accidents, and that person then runs someone over in your car? Isn't there a theory that you should at a minimum face some civil liability?

How do we address a situation where there is malfeasance at the top which directly contributed to the criminal acts of an employee even if those acts may not have been intended? Such situations do occur in the real world, so do we adopt what you say is the "navy standard" and just make them all guilty? That would certainly be the simpler way, but it wouldn't exactly be fair. Nor would it be fair to say that in this one area, you can never be guilty without specific intent. The main difference between this and the car analogy is that here, the corporate employer has more direct control of the employee than does the owner of the car who has little control once the vehicle is operated by the other person.

I hardly think we are seeing a trend of abusing government power to prosecute corporate brass. It's actually quite the opposite. Virtually no one faced any accountability over the Wall Street collapse. That is because the laws aren't tough enough, and because it is too easy for people in those situations to cover their tracks. No, we aren't in a situation where white collar crimes are over-prosecuted. This law intends to solve a problem which doesn't exist.

 

[glenn1]

Suppose you allow someone who does not own a car to drive your car, even though you know that person had 4 prior DUI's and 2 alcohol related accidents, and that person then runs someone over in your car? Isn't there a theory that you should at a minimum face some civil liability?

How do we address a situation where there is malfeasance at the top which directly contributed to the criminal acts of an employee even if those acts may not have been intended? Such situations do occur in the real world, so do we adopt what you say is the "navy standard" and just make them all guilty? That would certainly be the simpler way, but it wouldn't exactly be fair. Nor would it be fair to say that in this one area, you can never be guilty without specific intent. The main difference between this and the car analogy is that here, the corporate employer has more direct control of the employee than does the owner of the car who has little control once the vehicle is operated by the other person.

I hardly think we are seeing a trend of abusing government power to prosecute corporate brass. It's actually quite the opposite. Virtually no one faced any accountability over the Wall Street collapse. That is because the laws aren't tough enough, and because it is too easy for people in those situations to cover their tracks. No, we aren't in a situation where white collar crimes are over-prosecuted. This law intends to solve a problem which doesn't exist.

Then just call it what it really is - you want the ability to punish executives for outcomes you don't like. And if needed, you'll rationalize a reason to punish them - intent doesn't matter, knowledge of it doesn't matter, only the undesirable end result matters.

 

[woolfe9998]

Then just call it what it really is - you want the ability to punish executives for outcomes you don't like. And if needed, you'll rationalize a reason to punish them - intent doesn't matter, knowledge of it doesn't matter, only the undesirable end result matters.

No, we rely on prosecutorial discretion to distinguish those cases where there is legitimate criminal liability from cases where there is not. We do this everywhere, not just with corporate crime. If we're punishing for an outcome, which could be done in any context including the car analogy I mentioned, without there being any fault or blame, then we have a problem. In this area or any other. Limiting prosecution to specific intent crimes would certainly remove much of that discretion, and also let off anyone who is guilty of something lesser. Everything is a tradeoff. I fail to see why a different sort of tradeoff is called for here.

 

[ivwshane]

Then just call it what it really is - you want the ability to punish executives for outcomes you don't like. And if needed, you'll rationalize a reason to punish them - intent doesn't matter, knowledge of it doesn't matter, only the undesirable end result matters.

How many convictions of CEO's can you come up with where you believe they were unfairly convicted?

 

[theeedude]

GOP is the party of oligarchy, not free markets.

 

[Jhhnn]

I already told you, neither one represents the middle class which is the only thing I can support.

You need to start reading the things that you just got done quoting. This is from my post that you JUST quoted "but I don't like being forced into party affiliation as I don't think either one represents the middle class"

Seriously, what is your problem? What job could someone possibly hold if they can't discus what they just read?

I'm not even going to comment on how you want to restrict peoples voting rights.

Yes, you told me what you believe. That doesn't make it true, just truthy.

If you'd care to describe the differences between Bernie's positions on the issues (other than guns) & those of progressive Dems you might have a point. OTOH, that's not possible but you somehow believe that it is.

Voting rights? Please. Caucuses vs Primaries (open or closed) is a States Rights issue.

Only 16 States have open presidential primaries. CO, in particular, uses the caucus system to select delegates to the electoral college for the winning party. Voters have the right to vote for anybody they want in the general election by write in.

I can appreciate how sane Repubs would want independents to vote in their primaries so as not to let the looney base select candidates who can't win in the general but that doesn't mean Dems want to let them influence their own selections.

 

[theeedude]

Can Republicans do anything without holding Americans hostage to corporate interests? I mean everyone agrees we need criminal justice reform, but we can't get that without letting corporate crooks get away with murder?

 

[Jhhnn]

I love it. Righties who rave on incessantly about how the black usurper let Wall St off easy are all in favor of making it even harder to prosecute.

Cuz Freedom, apparently. Forget personal responsibility, another of their dance routines. Righties don't take responsibility they aren't forced to take, just like Wall St.

 

[TheSlamma]

Yes, you told me what you believe. That doesn't make it true, just truthy.

If you'd care to describe the differences between Bernie's positions on the issues (other than guns) & those of progressive Dems you might have a point. OTOH, that's not possible but you somehow believe that it is.

Voting rights? Please. Caucuses vs Primaries (open or closed) is a States Rights issue.

Only 16 States have open presidential primaries. CO, in particular, uses the caucus system to select delegates to the electoral college for the winning party. Voters have the right to vote for anybody they want in the general election by write in.

I can appreciate how sane Repubs would want independents to vote in their primaries so as not to let the looney base select candidates who can't win in the general but that doesn't mean Dems want to let them influence their own selections.

No, it's TRUE I don't like Loretta Lynch's pro stance on Civil asset forfeiture. Her words are that "it's a good tool", so again that is TRUE not "truthy" I would say nice try but as usual for you just pathetic.

Yes voting rights.. you just said you don't support an Indy voting in party primaries. Who was talking about states rights or federal? I was talking about YOUR view on it. Damn you don't even know WTF you just typed. here is your words Baffhhnn "If you're not a Party member it's only right that you have no say."

Here is the simple truth.. your party puts Sanders up or not, if they do I vote for him, if not I write his name in. I know you are (D) at all costs, but I'm a good candidate that supports the middle class and gets us out of the middle east at all costs.

 

[TheSlamma]

I love it. Righties who rave on incessantly about how the black usurper let Wall St off easy are all in favor of making it even harder to prosecute.

Cuz Freedom, apparently. Forget personal responsibility, another of their dance routines. Righties don't take responsibility they aren't forced to take, just like Wall St.

How do you go from ignorant statement to accurate statement in 5 minutes like that?

 

[kage69]

I love it. Righties who rave on incessantly about how the black usurper let Wall St off easy are all in favor of making it even harder to prosecute.

Cuz Freedom, apparently. Forget personal responsibility, another of their dance routines. Righties don't take responsibility they aren't forced to take, just like Wall St.

I've been asking the Wall Street types about this since their push against the credit reforms a few years back. Still cracks me up to hear them feign outrage over that lootfest, then go right on to say something like 'It's ok, we'll get Bush or Trump in office and get this economy back on the tracks.'

Corporate whores gonna whore, so like illegal prostitution maybe we really need to give the Johns more unpleasant exposure regarding their malfeasance?

 

[kage69]

Can Republicans do anything without holding Americans hostage to corporate interests? I mean everyone agrees we need criminal justice reform, but we can't get that without letting corporate crooks get away with murder?

I'd like to say Yes, but with Ted Cruz running and the kind of things people seem to agree with him over, I'm going with NO.