Like Greenwald, you suggested crimes were committed. Like Greenwald, you have offered no substantiation, nor have you been willing to name the crimes committed. Either your reasoning sucks, or your disclaimer is fertilizer.
Obfuscating what? Say whatever you want. I'm not in your way.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-22-2011 at 12:43 AM.
Unlike Greenwald, I didn't write an article considering the lack of prosecutions. I'm more than willing to believe that criminal activity occured - but his article does not contain sufficient evidence. Why does my caveat require me to offer proof again?
From a legal standpoint, his article is poorly argued. Your non-sequiters about my need to attest to crimes detracts focus from the point -- that his "article" is lazy.
Not at all. But do you think his article is well-reasoned from a legal standpoint?
Sure. I just don't think his article does a good job explaining that.
I honestly have no idea why you're fighting with me on this.
So you're ok with lazy academic writing?
Why's Eliott Spitzer relevant to this article?
Academic writing? This is an internet article posted on a left leaning site. Its not a peer reviewed article/study. In fact, I'd argue the article is nothing more than an advertisement for Greenwald's book. In no way shape or form would I ever think of assigning the label academic writing to a glorified political blog post.
Eliott Spitzer is relevant to the content of the article for many reasons including his experience as a prosecuter in the jurisdiction that handles Wall Street and his comments in recent history concerning crimes and the lack of prosecution of the financial sector.
Reciprocity. You demanded proof of others.
On the contrary, you're repeating yourself again. The focus is clear but your mind seems to have come to a full stop before it. That's hardly my fault.
Also, the content of the article is largely about investigations being stopped and killed or just flat out refusal to conduct them so to say that he doesn't present evidence on these allegations of wrongdoing when there are active efforts to prevent any such evidence from being found is some very very bad circular logic.
I don't think you need to compare these situations to the epidemic of jailing poorer people (especially minorities) because I do think that both situations have different causes if not one very related one (the amount of political power possessed by those with more money as to the amount of influence possessed by those with no money.) but I can also see how helping point out the situation helps in bringing light to both issues.
Arguing that his article is poorly argued from a legal standpoint is hilarious, though. We often talk about being tried in the press but the fact remains that Salon.com is far from a court of law so the standards you're using are curious.
It is like when Yoni and WC argue that no wrongdoing occurred because there was no criminal conviction.
Why is that? He's making a legal claim (crimes have been committed, but prosecutions are not occuring). Why's it outlandish to ask for an explanation of the law and how the crime has been committed? Just because it's on Salon.com, the guy should get a pass? Maybe your right that I expect too much from a Salon.com article - but if the author makes a legal claim - it's reasonable to expect that he should back it up with more than blurbs and sound bites.
Also, knowing more about the crime, the facts, and the penalties would either make his point more persuasive (like you said, the fact that prosecutions are being dropped) or more re ed (like how one of his links flat out says the conduct in question was legal).
Echo in here?
He could be more persuasive with more information but its a short article not a legal brief.
"Why's Eliott Spitzer relevant to this article?"
Spitzer as reviled by Wall St, as "the sheriff of Wall St", until Wall St got dubya's corrupt DoJ take Spitzer down. Spitzer was able to get Greenberg out of AIG, and Spitzer was on the right trail there as AIG was screwed up and cost taxpayer's $10Bs. Spitzer certainly knows a lot about Wall St's crime and criminals.
Alas, the readers of Salon are mostly cold to that distinction. Many posters here as well.
Considering that he has a book coming out soon, I'm relatively sure that Greenwald will go into more depth there.
And you keep disregarding his mentions of both the Telecom Immunity Act and the criminal probe of the Countrywide CEO.
Countywide was definitely a target for prosecution. The mortgage fraud they committed was extensive and its a ing shame they don't go after these people.
Wells Fargo I think paid a huge civil fine along these lines recently. The civil side is still active.
The civil side is undoubtedly a place where because the burden of proof is easier and it doesn't rely on government officials acting that you're going to see action. If I was put into a mortgage that was sub prime unecessarily you bet your ass I would sue - especially when the actions were as systematic as they were with these companies.
Too bad the prosecutors are too busy keeping us safe from online poker.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote