I’m a blunt guy and I hate when people choose not to be blunt and instead hide behind weasel words. Case in point: Glenn Reynolds says that I chose to read his post advocating that business move from New York lest they be scrutinized by the attorney general as an endorsement of corporate crime. I didn’t "choose to read it" that way, that’s what he wrote.
Please shove that passive aggressive b.s. somewhere where the sun don’t shine. If a company isn’t doing anything wrong, then they’ve got no beef with their attorney general – be that in New York, Maryland or any other state. Period. If the attorney general doing his or her job is reason enough to leave the state, then you’re probably doing something wrong – and that’s the sort of people Reynolds is casting his lot with.
Well, what did you expect? Reynolds is a lawyer! Law professor, no less. If there were fewer weasel words, there would be a lot fewer employed lawyers…
If the attorney general doing his or her job is reason enough to leave the state, then you’re probably doing something wrong
And, “you’re innocent until proven guilty”? Save that for the murderers and child molesters.
We’re talking about – shudder! – white collar crime here!
See my comment of Jan 14, 2007 1:27:44 AM
We’re talking about – shudder! – white collar crime here!
Exactly. Why should someone who steals millions get off with less punishment than a kid who steals $20 from a liquor store?
How does a kid run out of a liquor store with $20? By stealing a bottle of scotch?
Do you think Martha Stewart should do more real jail time than a kid who leaves a liquor store owner dying in a pool of his own blood?
Let’s not be ridiculous, here.
I was referring to the fact that our standard of declaring someone innocent until they are proven guilty shouldn’t disappear when that standard is applied to corporate officers.
The point of Reynolds’ story was clear as a bell. Corporations are fair game in the Peoples’ Republic of New York. Your chances of being hounded for a conviction — yes, even if you are innocent — are very, very high.
It is not unreasonable to suppose that, all other things being equal, there will be corporations leaving the state to avoid the witch hunt.
And, to the give the devil his due, some shady corporations will leave, too, taking their wages and income and sales tax with them.
Frank, there are an awful lot of former Enron employees who would probably have preferred to have their wallet stolen than their pension. But, hey, it’s only shudder white collar crime.
Oliver, just one thread where Frank isn’t every alternating comment. Wait, he had fuck all to say following the midterm election, right?
That was the very definition of the sound of silence.
zadura: No one is minimizing white collar crime — it is what it is — a crime.
The point is that it is a civil offense; the legal expenses are the same (corporations can’t get public defenders), and corporations have, in the past, incurred great expenses to clear up cases that were bogus from the get go.
One Enron does not a corporate crime wave make.
You, like the Democratic administration in NYS, are working on the supposition that, if you sniff around in the books ofe enough corporations, long enough, you’ll find something.
But that’s not the spirit of our legal system.
AND, it will drive corporations out of the State.
Period.
You can stop comparing zillion – dollar pension ripoffs to stealing gum from the luncheonette now. Unless, of course, stealing gum comes with a multimillion dollar fine.
Are you aware of the fact that Exxon is still appealing the multiBILLION dollar fine levied on them for the Exxon Valdese, for which the Alaskan gowernment bears partial responsibility, but for which they paid no fine?
Frank, please stop tossing assertions out like “incurred great expenses to clear up cases that were bogus from the get go” with absolutely no substantiation beyond your word. Can you give a few solid examples to back up your belief that New York is looking to destroy its business community?
Yes, Exxon has been working for years to avoid paying for all the damage they caused with the Valdez spill. That’s because Exxon is run by the scum of the Earth. To argue that Alaska bears some of the responsibility, though, is hilarious as it completely undercuts your argument about New York. The commission set up to investigate the spill concluded that the government of Alaska had failed to provide sufficient oversight and had allowed the oil industry to treat safety as an afterthought, if they thought of it at all. In other words, the government needed to stick its nose in industry’s business more, not less. That seems to run counter to the notion that New York needs to shut up and let business go on their merry way.
And there, in a nutshell, is exactly what Reynolds is saying. The underlying threat that comes with being told that the rules apply to fat cats and luncheonette gum thieves. “Hey, New York, yous don’t wanna make me haves ta pack up and moves, does ya? I mean, to lose all dem jobs would be a shame. And to lose all that tax money. I mean really, ain’t fairness and justice overrated? Dat hokey stuff is for the little peoples. You look away, and everybody wins. I get to treat you like dirt and you gets some nice jobs to talk about during elections. Nothin’ personal, it’s just business is all.”
First of all, Frank can’t come up with a single business that Spitzer has “chased” out of New York.
Second, if a business is guilty of something and gets investigated, that’s a waste of tax dollars that could be spent on other services-better to waste another state’s money.
Third, if you run your business properly, you should have full and complete records-any competent investigation should reveal that there is nothing there-remember probable cause and warrants?
I didn’t “choose to read it” that way, that’s what he wrote.
That is not what he wrote and what he said about you was 100% true. You took an entry, twisted what he wrote to fit your agenda and said, “This is what he means.” Don’t get your panties in a wad because you chose to interpret something in a particular way. You do it A LOT, so don’t get pissy when you’re called on it.
I didn’t twist anything, Jay, I commented on exactly what he wrote.
OK, it seems pretty clear that Frank and Instaputz have a clear narrative already built up in their heads; that a number of corporations have been “chased” out of NY through prosecutions, not for genuine criminal malfeasance, but for purely partisan reasons.
Frank, for clear viewer participation, could you provide us with a few examples of these so we can understand what, exactly, constitutes a purely partisan investigation?
On a side note, every time I hear righties whine about “Well, Enron was an exception, not the rule”, (a) they usually leave out Worldcom, Tyco, and any number of other similar cases, and (b) up until the moment the evidence showing beyond doubt the utter corruption and malfeasance of the Enron executives was all released, numerous market-absolutists were whining about how any investigation into Enron constituted “anti-capitalism”, “punishing success”, or “partisan witch-hunts against Republican campaign donors.”
I didn’t twist anything, Jay, I commented on exactly what he wrote.
No Oliver, that is not what you did. You reached the conclusion that Glenn has no problem with corporate crime based on what he wrote. There is nothing in his entry that comes to saying that and that is not what he wrote.
Frank, for clear viewer participation, could you provide us with a few examples of these so we can understand what, exactly, constitutes a purely partisan investigation?
Where did the word partisan come from? Glenn didn’t say anything about partisan investigations. He did say politically motivated and that could mean a wide range of things. Perhaps if you and Oliver listened to the podcast Glenn was referencing, you might have a better understanding of what he was talking about.
But that might take some effort and rational thinking. Better to take the intellectually lazy route and accuse Reynolds of supporting corporate crime.
Still no examples. Hmm.
I just listened to the podcast up to where Reynolds makes the argument regarding Matha Stewart that the RW is making in the Libby case. That she wasn’t charged with the “underlying crime” that was first being investigated, just lying to investigators. He and the others call it a “shortcut” by prosecutors.
Truly unbelievable to listen to lawyers – with a straight face – shrug off obstruction of justice charges. An as if all good and respectable investigations of crimes end up with charges being placed exactly in line with the initial investigation. It’s beyond stupid, and I think deliberately disingenuous.
What’s the surprise? He always makes allusions and never has the guts to take responsibility for them. Reynold’s blog is essentially the internet’s longest concern troll.
C’mon Jay.
Glenn’s response is a bit of a dodge. He says he’s only complaining about prosecutorial excess and “politically motivated” prosecutions.
How far do you think the AG’s office would have to back off before Glenn wouldn’t see monsters under the bed? I’d go with: Until prosecutors physically slap plaintiffs and help corporated defendants load sacks of 100-dollar bills into their waiting Hummers.
And not a bit sooner.
Quaker, where does Glenn say or imply that he supports corporate crime? Let’s go back to what Oliver wrote:
Glenn Reynolds: Corporate Crime Is Okay
That’s what I read when his reaction to NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo continuing Elliot Spitzer’s prosecution of corporate crime. Reynolds says that what corporations should do to evade legal scrutiny is move from New York. They shouldn’t stop doing illegal and shady things, says Reynolds, nope — they should just move.
Why is it conservatives worship so feverishly at the altar of corporate money, to the extent where they condone crime?
1. He titles his post accusing Reynolds of saying, “Corporate Crime Is Ok”
2. He reaches by saying Glenn says companies can “avoid legal scrutiny” by leaving New York. As if other states can’t prosecute such companies. It is no secret that Spitzer has been accused of being overzealous, dusting off very old statutes in order to be able to issue subpoenas. Is it legal? Sure. But then again, there are states with all kinds of absurd antiquated laws that could be prosecuted. It doesn’t mean it has to.
3. Once again, Oliver accuses Reynolds of “condoning crime” without any evidence to support such an accusation.
Reynolds said that Oliver chose to read it that way and he’s right! It’s stupid for people to complain that Glenn was too ambiguous with what he meant. If you feel he’s being ambiguous than ASK HIM what he meant by it. You don’t assume and then whine when you’re told your assumption is off base.
First of all, Frank can’t come up with a single business that Spitzer has “chased” out of New York.
As soon as one of you can name for me a single law – breaking corporation.
McDonald’s. Your turn.
McDonald’s
Not as far as I know.
Guess again.
Before you try, I don’t mean a corporation which has been convicted, and I don’t mean a corporation being sued by someone — there are lots of those.
So….how far WOULD the AG’s office have to back off before Glenn would stop seeing the “political prosecutions” monster under the bed?
So….how far WOULD the AG’s office have to back off before Glenn would stop seeing the “political prosecutions” monster under the bed?
So you agree that Oliver was wrong to characterize Glenn as holding the position that corporate crime is a-ok. Good.
Without putting too fine a point on it, Jay, Spitzer and Cuomo are Democrats. Glenn’s going to accuse them of partisanship even if they’re prosecuted for shoving old ladies down mine shafts.
So let’s take this from a more realistic perspective. The AG’s office is going to do its best to win cases. You can’t do that by taking too many bogus “politicall-motivated cases.”
Does an AG grandstand on occasion? I’d bet on it. Are nearly all of the cases an AG brings backed by solid evidence? Again, I’d bet on it.
So when Glenn suggests that corporations will flee a district in which the AG has put together a strong team he’s making a cute insinuation: The Democratic AG is anti-business.
Why is a diligent AG anti-business, Jay?
That you choose not to engage the question is interesting.
How far?
As soon as one of you can name for me a single law – breaking corporation.
I’ll take Haliburton for $1000, Alex.
I don’t mean a corporation which has been convicted, and I don’t mean a corporation being sued by someone
So, what exactly do you mean, then? A company that has been accused of wrongdoing?
I wouldn’t think that would wash with you, Frank.
Then you don’t know much, Frank. Maybe you’re deliberately ignorant, I don’t know. More likely you’re just pathologically unable to grasp the possibility of being wrong, which would explain your ridiculous criteria for a “law-breaking corporation”.
Oh, and as if you need an example, how about the undeniable exploitation of third-world farmers?
Damn it, stupid cookies.
Without putting too fine a point on it, Jay, Spitzer and Cuomo are Democrats. Glenn’s going to accuse them of partisanship even if they’re prosecuted for shoving old ladies down mine shafts.
Oh that’s nonsense. He holds the same viewpoint on the Martha Stewart case which was a federal case and therefore falls under Bush’s jurisdiction. Please, enough with the tired, “He said it because they’re Democrats!” BS.
And it’s not about ‘grandstanding’ nor is it about diligence. It’s about overzealousness and a propensity to go after companies with little used laws and taking long accepted business practices that the feds don’t prosecute and turning them into crimes. The result? The threatened lawsuits bring about settlements instead of the more expensive route of a court battle. The result of that? Billions into state coffers.
Did you know that Spitzer, during his entire time as AG, tried only exactly one financial fraud case? And lost.
The message is, if they’re going to continue the same kind of browbeating as a way of collecting big payouts, then some businesses might decide it would be better to move across the river and set up shop in NJ. Whether the AG is a Democrat or a Republican.
So, what exactly do you mean, then? A company that has been accused of wrongdoing?
Yes, of course.
If there are all that many corporations that have been accused of corporate wrongdoing — violation of state law (internet’s Frank — whoever you really are — probably “s” [you've never had an original idea in your life]) — then, perhaps a special unit might be in order.
But if the purpose of the unit is to satisfy some liberals’ pipe dream of “bringing down” eeeeevil corporations, then they are up to no good.
Oliver Willis | Jan 15, 2007 1:47:28 AM
“That was the very definition of the sound of silence.”
Indeed! And in stark contrast to the venemous hate email he crafted some weeks ago. Interested in reading it?
By all means, “s” let’s see it!
And, please, don’t leave anything out, because I have a copy.
I keep all of my sent eMails.
Let’s read ‘em!
you’re right jay, price fixing and late market trading are “long accepted business practices that the feds don’t prosecute…” why couldn’t spitzer just leave well enough alone? i would have been perfectly content checking overinflated stock prices and administrative fee loaded mutual funds on my overpriced computer.
On the corporate crime scene, a pizza parlor is accepting PESOS in exchange for pies. If there isn’t a law against this, these oughta be. Undermining the GOP War on Brown People is a serious offense.
WoW! From the senselessness of wasting time on a Special Team for fighting “Corporate Crime” to Republican Racism!
Damn!
Was that turn:
180 degrees
360 degrees
540 degrees
720 degrees
Choose one.
Was that turn:
180 degrees
360 degrees
540 degrees
720 degrees
Choose one.
Did you intend for all of those to mean the same thing? Because while 180 = 540 degrees, and 360 = 720 degrees. 180 != 360 degrees. The War on Math rages onward!
I promised I would ignore you, but a chance to show you what a dickhead you are is to good to pass up:
180 degrees is a full turn
360 degrees is two full turns
540 degrees is three full turns
720 degrees is four full turns
zython = jadegold = much less smarter than he pretends
Okay, I’m trying really hard not to physically burst out laughing, but Frank:
180 degrees is a half rotation
360 degrees is a full rotation
and so on, and so on.
Math = 1, Frank = 0.
Hey, Bill L. , Did I say rotation?
I said turn as in turning around…
So laugh elsewhere.
Bill L. = 0
The point was that the whizkid known as mikefromtexas had made an absurd change of topic.
If that disturbed some cobwebbed area of your brain where the 10th Grade geometry was located, I don’t care.
Exploiting third world farmers doesn’t count because it’s not like it’s against the law or anything.
How did I know you’d say that?
Please, enough with the tired, “He said it because they’re Democrats!” BS.
…It’s about overzealousness and a propensity to go after companies with little used laws and taking long accepted business practices that the feds don’t prosecute and turning them into crimes.
…and attributing it to political motivation. Has he been charging any Republican AG’s with “political motivation”?
Did you know that Spitzer, during his entire time as AG, tried only exactly one financial fraud case? And lost.
Did you know that Glenn’s post is about Cuomo? And that he’s predicting that Cuomo is going to be politically motivated just because he’s hiring the best team he can put together?
Classic strawman from Oliver.
And Jay’s right. Oliver does this a lot.
Sorry Frank, you’re wrong on the math and on the casual semantic use. A “complete” 180 in terms of a political debate means, as you know, a full reversal of position (which is, no doubt, where you got the idea of a “full” turn), putting the individual metaphorically with their back to their old argument. Nobody was confused by what you intended to say. However, when you tossed in 360 and 720, you essentially argued that mikefromtexas was still holding the same position he always had. Again, I get the idea that he was spinning/turning/rotating to find a new point of attack, but tossing in the mathematical equivalent to two full turns/rotations/spins puts him precisely back where he started.
The turns didn’t come from politics:
Caballerial: a 360-degree turn performed on a ramp while riding fakie (backwards), named after skater Steve Caballero
McTwist: a 540-degree turn performed on a ramp, named after Mike McGill
>*crickets*
>*crickets*
Glenn Reynolds claim that he isn’t defending corporate crime is simply hilarious.