1. Opposing attempts to get innocent people out of jail means letting the guilty run free. Eschaton and LGM covered this recently (the Texas Monthly story is incredible).
2. The Bush Administration decreased enforcement of environmental and white collar crimes, and you can expect similar results at state levels.
3. Republican elites hide behind pretenses of defending individuals from overzealous prosecution while serving the worst corporate excesses. Read this Redstate article on Criminalizing America - not once is protecting lawbreaking corporations mentioned. I stopped and read while skimming Redstate because of the name of the author, alecstates. Anything from ALEC deserves special attention and admiration. Read the actual model legislation and its slightly clearer that requiring intentional breaking of the law, and not just intention to commit the act, is meant to make it incredibly difficult to prosecute a corporate entity. That particular proposal apparently traces back to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, part of the Kochtopus.
I'm sure there's more.
(And it goes without saying that Obama should have pushed much harder on financial crimes related to the Great Recession, although it looks like some things are finally happening.)
Ah, so ignorance of the law is an excuse? Glad we got that cleared up at long last; there's been a rumor to the contrary circulating for ages.
ReplyDeleteBack into two bit politician mode.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you citing an article from 2007 to support your title, but not only did Obama not push hard he hired some of the best crooks into his administration, genius.
1
Happy Veterans Day to all who serve and have served, thank you for your service.
ReplyDeleteSemper Fi
1
Eli should probably change the subtitle from "Eli's climate blog" to "Brian's Campaign blog"
ReplyDeleteDo you only have one anonystalkerbot assigned to follow up anything you post?
ReplyDeleteMake more waves, and they'll start using better simulations to post their attacks on you, fake IP numbers in your local area to look like valid citizens, etc.
AT1's veteran's day message--a day late and about a billion brain cells short.
ReplyDeleteThe most egregious example of lawlessness is missing from this piece, and it wasn't only the GOP that perpetrated it: massive, indiscriminate, suspicionless, warrantless surveillance of all American's communications. Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, Hoyer, and Feinstein all voted for and defended the NSA programs, even granting retroactive immunity to the law-breaking telecoms under the theory that the government told them to do it and they and shouldn't be held responsible for their law-breaking.
ReplyDeleteNow, the NSA tells our legislators what restrictions on their activities they're even willing to consider, and the constitutionality of their behavior hardly even gets debated--it would be too much of an inconvenience. This is the very definition of a military dictatorship, not a democracy operating under the rule of law.
Taylor B
A,
ReplyDeleteYeah this veteran remembered and thanked many other yesterday. It is sad that RR publishes Brian's Bull on Veterans Day rather than a recognition of the day itself.
1
Hank joins the crazy club.
ReplyDelete1
Taylor B - yes I didn't like that either and blogged about it here at RR.
ReplyDelete"I didn't like that either"
ReplyDeleteMaybe Brian could use that as his campaign slogan.
"Maybe Brian could use that as his campaign slogan."
ReplyDeleteHa! Good one. Great laugh with my morning coffee!
1
Leaving anonymous irrelevancies aside, Brian's post is on target. I'd go a bit further, and suggest that the GOP is not only soft on the worst financial crimes (as are many of the Democrats), they're actively pursuing a traitorous program of nullification. I'd like to see broader application of the RICO Act, and if it swept up a bunch of the worst Democrats as well, it would be all for the good.
ReplyDeleteTaylor B
Leaving Taylor B's irrelevancy aside, no one is softer on financial crime than the Obama administration.
ReplyDelete1
AT1, While I agree Obama could be pursuing the kleptocrats more assiduously, Wall Street evidently doesn't share your assessment.
ReplyDeleteNeither does the GOP, which is tirelessly working to further weaken Dodd-Frank and generally act as water-carriers for Wall St. and the banking industry, along with a broad group of miserable Democrats. The main difference being that the GOP is proud of their corruption, while the Dems at least try to hide it. A pox on both their houses, with a few notable exceptions.
ReplyDeleteTaylor B
Why would you rather have someone hide their corruption than wear it on their sleeve?
ReplyDeleteThat makes no sense, kind of like Dodd-Frank.
1
I didn't say which I'd prefer, but it suggests who understands that their corruption is shameful and repugnant, unlike the GOP and their apologists. Thanks for admitting as much. Now, kindly return to snorking your coffee.
ReplyDeleteTaylor B
"The main difference being that the GOP is proud of their corruption, while the Dems at least try to hide it."
ReplyDelete"...at least try to hide it".
Interesting choice of words if you were not approving on them trying to hide it.
"...unlike the GOP and their apologists." he said with a whiny voice.
1
If you're stipulating (in a "whiny voice") to preferring openly corrupt politicians, I'll stipulate to having only slightly less contempt and revulsion for corrupt politicians who give lip service to, and occasionally, if only rarely, vote in favor of better policies, even if it's only to provide plausible deniability. That doesn't mean I'll vote for them. As I said above, a pox on both their houses. Thanks for letting us know where you stand, 1.
ReplyDeleteTaylor B
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNo Taylor just pointing out in a humorous way the preference you have for Democrats while claiming to say they are both bad. Rather transparent.
ReplyDelete1
In your febrile imagination, 1. My allegedly poorly concealed transparency is based on the fact that I made no attempt to conceal my position, although it's not what you apparently think it is. I'll leave you to argue with the spam-bots, with whom you can exercise your all-encompassing senses. Enjoy yourself.
ReplyDeleteTaylor B
The "debate" above about which is preferable, blatantly corrupt politicians or stealthily corrupt politicians, would be hilarious if the subject were not so serious.
ReplyDeleteBut it does tell you pretty much all you need to know about the state of the two party system in the US: completely broken.
" at least they try to hide it."
ReplyDeleteDefinitely a statement of preference. You are just mad that I picked up on it.
1
Thanks Ralph
ReplyDelete