Reply With Quote
---oh the intellectual gynastics required for that one were impressive.
You realize that Hugo Chavez seizes all manner of assets under the guise of "national security" right.
I have mixed feelings about that. Personally since I'm not doing anything wrong I don't have a problem with them listening to my calls.
---oh the intellectual gynastics required for that one were impressive.
You realize that Hugo Chavez seizes all manner of assets under the guise of "national security" right.
My God.... You're right, and I forgot that your diety, BHO, want's to follow in his footsteps...---oh the intellectual gynastics required for that one were impressive.
You realize that Hugo Chavez seizes all manner of assets under the guise of "national security" right.
BP had no reason to give in other than it was the best possible course for them. If they didn't think so they would have fought it in court.
Then again BP is obviously in the habit of making poor decisions.
It's not worth fighting sometimes.
Of course BP made the best decision they could under the cir stances.
Unlike you, they don't live in a vacuum.
When the White House told them to put up 20 billion or "We WILL you up" they had no real choice but to go along with the extortion.
Oh god - give me a ing break. What was Obama going to send goons to break the BP's CEO's legs? Yeah, they'd make life for them in court but those are pretty much the consequences of being negligent s who make such huge mistakes.
CC, Champion of BP's cause. Keep up the good fight.
Thanks for proving my point.
Not like that, but that would have been less drastic than what the power of the presidency can do.
Obama did threaten them. If you don't believe that, you are a ing fool.
Are you really THAT stupid? You do know that the US government is a partner with the oil companies and controls and profits from the oil rights leasing on all federal lands/waters right? You also know that BP is a major player in Alaska and the North Slope too, right? You don't think they could over BP if they wanted to? It was extortion pure and simple to make Obama look like he was actually doing something.
And by the way, this is due process. They had the choice and they made it. When an AG makes a criminal take a plea bargain that isn't deriving them of due process its using leverage.
No one ever said we had to bend over for corporations for it to be due process.
No he threatened them. Like I said, that isn't a deprivation on due process.
Using leverage over a company does not equate to denial of due process.
Its not like BP did anything to deserve this though. Poor BP is just another victim of Don Obama getting his pound of flesh.
Maybe thats "due process" for a "progressive" but that is NOT due process of law.
Actually it is. When someone gives up their right voluntarily they're not being deprived of anything. Talk to any attorney general about how plea deals work. You don't think there are threats involved?
The threat that a DA uses against a criminal is to go to court and argue the facts of that specific case and the defendant could possibly get a worse outcome than the one offered.
In this case the threat was implicit...We have NO legal basis to make you give us 20 billion but we will you up if you don't
Those are two dramatically different scenarios.
I clearly see you have a very weak grasp of due process.
Can we all agree that Chicago style politics are in the white house?
I clearly see that you have a very weak grasp on reality. Courts have clear rules concerning evidence, admissibility, etc. and yes Manny, at the end of the day criminal cases are tried on the FACTS.
I clearly see you have a very weak grasp of due process.
The FACT is that BP could have probably taken the US to court and prevailed on the law that the US could not legally force a private company to put 20 billion in an escrow account controlled by politicians.
They didn't, however, because they knew that they would be ed over in a thousand other ways and took the path of least resistance.
That is NOT due process any more than a robber sticking a gun in your face and telling you to give him your wallet or he will shoot you. You probably would voluntarily give him your wallet but that sure as isn't due process.
But you just said taking away due process was ok, for "national security".
That means, logically, that you endorse Mr. Chavez' actions to protect his country's national security, right?
Or is it that you are ok with getting rid of due process when something meets your definition of "security", but not for others' definition?
Smacks of hypocrisy to me.
So, you think that BP won't be found to be criminally negligent?
Honestly? Based on the information I have read I don't think BP will be found to be criminally negligent. Even if they WERE found to be criminally negligent based on existing law they would technically only be on the hook for 75 million. Despite all the posturing from the White House there was no way they could legally raise that limit after the fact.
Out of court settlements are as old as the court systems themselves.
CC just apologized to BP.
Out of court legal settlements are done when there is a risk that if the case goes to trial that the trial outcome would be worse than the settlement. That wasn't the case here.
This was never about whether to US government could legally force BP to give them 20 billion. They couldn't.
The robber/wallet analogy was a better description of what really happened.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions