Skip to main content

View Diary: The Blood on Lanny Breuer's Hands (88 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  there needs to be something that can be (22+ / 0-)

    considered an ethical breach of responsibility when a prosecutor refuses to prosecute, or even investigate, even though private cases are bringing forth plenty of evidence of crimes.

    That Frontline piece is pretty damning. Spitzer says, "this is where I would start...." and the journalist goes there - just that one step - and immediately has evidence of fraud. And, then, civil cases are documenting the fraud in detail. But, Breuer says they couldn't find enough evidence. And the President says no one committed any crimes.

    There has to be a way that we can come to agreement that you are complicit in a crime if you willfully choose to ignore them.

    The layers of injustice here are crushing us. Just as the layers of injustice regarding racism have crushed us. Simply ending the most common way that people kept other people as slaves, didn't mean we really restored ourselves to justice. We're still paying the social/economic/sustainability price for that to this day.

    I don't get that we'll ever learn. I'm not sure what is to be done about it. If you try and say these things, even to friends, you are treated as a heretic. We simply don't want to do the hard work of setting ourselves on a more just and sustainable path.

    •  Yes, it is unjust. (10+ / 0-)

      But, in addition to the absolute immunity enjoyed by prosecutors (because no legislation has denied it to them, as the Federal Tort Claims Act did for other public officials, including members of Congress), there's the problem which arises from artificial bodies (private corporations) being equated with natural persons in the law and provided with the presumption of innocence, not to mention the right to privacy. The presumptions we make about one vulnerable natural person and how much dammage s/he can perpetrate before being stopped ought not to be extended to groups acting under the umbrella of a fictional organization. It need not be that way. The Citizens United decision was issued because there was no legislative predicate to support what McCain/Feingold tried to do, especially since most corporations are the creatures of states, not the federal government.
      That Delaware, for example, charters thousands of corporations without providing any meaningful supervision is a scandal. That a great portion of Delaware's annual expenditures for public services come from the registration fees paid by corporations is also a scandal.
      The federal charter (constitution) sets a pattern of outlining specifically what the members of the public corporation are to do and the duties they are to carry out -- nothing more and nothing less. However, our Congress has been at pains to relieve itself of obligations via "privatization" just so they don't have to be accountable. So, they and their cohorts in state legislatures have come to rely on private corporations doing their dirty work for them. What dirty work? Extortion and bribery to insure their own tenure in positiions of influence. In this election cycle we have seen some corporations refuse to go along with the scam and we have seen them go public with the pressures they are under to make the workforce vote "right." How has that been interpreted in the press? As corporations showing their hand -- not as standing up to extortionate congress critters.

      We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:42:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site