Joe Barton apologizing to BP

[8537]

That performance was a national embarrassment. Our representatives treated Hayward like a criminal.

Perhaps that's because, well....Mr Hayward is a criminal? or, more precisely: Mr Hayward oversaw criminal activity?

 

[Mr. H.]

That performance was a national embarrassment. Our representatives treated Hayward like a criminal.

Perhaps that's because, well....Mr Hayward is a criminal? or, more precisely: Mr Hayward oversaw criminal activity?

That's yet to be determined, isn't it?

 

[California Girl]

That performance was a national embarrassment. Our representatives treated Hayward like a criminal.

Perhaps that's because, well....Mr Hayward is a criminal? or, more precisely: Mr Hayward oversaw criminal activity?

We have this whole thing called 'due process' in the US, remember? Maybe he is culpable. Without doubt, he is not the only one. What about those in our own fucking government? They get a free pass while we hang the big bad foreign guy?

Fucking idiot.

 

[8537]

That performance was a national embarrassment. Our representatives treated Hayward like a criminal.

Perhaps that's because, well....Mr Hayward is a criminal? or, more precisely: Mr Hayward oversaw criminal activity?

That's yet to be determined, isn't it?

In one sense, yes. But it's hard to argue that no fraud against the government was committed when it submitted paperwork detailing its ability to handle a spill 10x this size. I'm sure Republicans will do their best to make sure the investigation is halted and therefore Mr Barton can convince people that he really did need to apologize. Just like they'll take the teeth out of the Volcker rule and then blame the next TBTF on Financial reform.

 

[California Girl]

Perhaps that's because, well....Mr Hayward is a criminal? or, more precisely: Mr Hayward oversaw criminal activity?

That's yet to be determined, isn't it?

In one sense, yes. But it's hard to argue that no fraud against the government was committed when it submitted paperwork detailing its ability to handle a spill 10x this size. I'm sure Republicans will do their best to make sure the investigation is halted and therefore Mr Barton can convince people that he really did need to apologize. Just like they'll take the teeth out of the Volcker rule and then blame the next TBTF on Financial reform.

Ordinarily, we don't judge people on 'a sense'.

There are way too many questions that have not even been asked, yet alone answered. I prefer to wait for ALL the facts before I start hanging people. I don't know why... I guess I just like to KNOW instead of guessing.

 

[8537]

That performance was a national embarrassment. Our representatives treated Hayward like a criminal.

Perhaps that's because, well....Mr Hayward is a criminal? or, more precisely: Mr Hayward oversaw criminal activity?

We have this whole thing called 'due process' in the US, remember?

yes, I do.

Maybe he is culpable. Without doubt, he is not the only one

Absolutely. He's not the only criminal.

What about those in our own fucking government? They get a free pass while we hang the big bad foreign guy?

What criminal activity on the part of the government causes the well to blow?

 

[Mr. H.]

Perhaps that's because, well....Mr Hayward is a criminal? or, more precisely: Mr Hayward oversaw criminal activity?

That's yet to be determined, isn't it?

In one sense, yes. But it's hard to argue that no fraud against the government was committed when it submitted paperwork detailing its ability to handle a spill 10x this size. I'm sure Republicans will do their best to make sure the investigation is halted and therefore Mr Barton can convince people that he really did need to apologize. Just like they'll take the teeth out of the Volcker rule and then blame the next TBTF on Financial reform.

The Republicans have nothing to gain by halting such an investigation. It will continue to completion, much like the NTSB conducts investigations. Here's a link to such reports -

NTSB - Aviation - Major Investigations

 

[8537]

That's yet to be determined, isn't it?

In one sense, yes. But it's hard to argue that no fraud against the government was committed when it submitted paperwork detailing its ability to handle a spill 10x this size. I'm sure Republicans will do their best to make sure the investigation is halted and therefore Mr Barton can convince people that he really did need to apologize. Just like they'll take the teeth out of the Volcker rule and then blame the next TBTF on Financial reform.

Ordinarily, we don't judge people on 'a sense'.

Of course we do. People sense that someone is guilty based on the testimony provided. In this case, not much testimony is required: They provided documentation to the government that they could contain a spill 10x this size. That was fraudulent.

 

[California Girl]

Perhaps that's because, well....Mr Hayward is a criminal? or, more precisely: Mr Hayward oversaw criminal activity?

We have this whole thing called 'due process' in the US, remember?

yes, I do.

Maybe he is culpable. Without doubt, he is not the only one

Absolutely. He's not the only criminal.

What about those in our own fucking government? They get a free pass while we hang the big bad foreign guy?

What criminal activity on the part of the government causes the well to blow?

Ordinary, as I have previously pointed out, we wait for due process to decide guilt or innocence.... and, in this matter, the degree of culpability.

And.... if you have to ask that question.... then you don't have all the information. Does that tell you something? It tells me quite a lot.

 

[8537]

That's yet to be determined, isn't it?

In one sense, yes. But it's hard to argue that no fraud against the government was committed when it submitted paperwork detailing its ability to handle a spill 10x this size. I'm sure Republicans will do their best to make sure the investigation is halted and therefore Mr Barton can convince people that he really did need to apologize. Just like they'll take the teeth out of the Volcker rule and then blame the next TBTF on Financial reform.

The Republicans have nothing to gain by halting such an investigation.

of course they have something to gain by halting the investigation: Joe Barton gets "proved" right in the minds of his constituents, companies flood their coffers with money and Republicans get another chance to exclaim the virtues of the unregulated market. It's like we've seen this story playout before or something...

 

[California Girl]

In one sense, yes. But it's hard to argue that no fraud against the government was committed when it submitted paperwork detailing its ability to handle a spill 10x this size. I'm sure Republicans will do their best to make sure the investigation is halted and therefore Mr Barton can convince people that he really did need to apologize. Just like they'll take the teeth out of the Volcker rule and then blame the next TBTF on Financial reform.

Ordinarily, we don't judge people on 'a sense'.

Of course we do. People sense that someone is guilty based on the testimony provided. In this case, not much testimony is required: They provided documentation to the government that they could contain a spill 10x this size. That was fraudulent.

No, in the United States, we use our justice system to establish guilt. We do not 'sense' someone's guilt. At least, rational, intelligent people do not.

 

[8537]

We have this whole thing called 'due process' in the US, remember?

yes, I do.



Absolutely. He's not the only criminal.

What about those in our own fucking government? They get a free pass while we hang the big bad foreign guy?

What criminal activity on the part of the government causes the well to blow?

Ordinary, as I have previously pointed out, we wait for due process to decide guilt or innocence.... and, in this matter, the degree of culpability.

And.... if you have to ask that question.... then you don't have all the information. Does that tell you something? It tells me quite a lot.

Someone in BP made the decision to remove the drilling mud and replace it with seawater. That was culpable criminal activity and no one disputes that event.

The only question is who in BP made the decision.

 

[8537]

Ordinarily, we don't judge people on 'a sense'.

Of course we do. People sense that someone is guilty based on the testimony provided. In this case, not much testimony is required: They provided documentation to the government that they could contain a spill 10x this size. That was fraudulent.

No, in the United States, we use our justice system to establish guilt. We do not 'sense' someone's guilt. At least, rational, intelligent people do not.

Our justice system is built in a jury of one's peers taking in testimony and delivering a verdict based on their sense of what happened.

That's how rational, intelligent people reach decisions. Current company perhaps excluded.

 

[California Girl]

Of course we do. People sense that someone is guilty based on the testimony provided. In this case, not much testimony is required: They provided documentation to the government that they could contain a spill 10x this size. That was fraudulent.

No, in the United States, we use our justice system to establish guilt. We do not 'sense' someone's guilt. At least, rational, intelligent people do not.

Our justice system is built in a jury of one's peers taking in testimony and delivering a verdict based on their sense of what happened.

That's how rational, intelligent people reach decisions. Current company perhaps excluded.

They reach a verdict by considering ALL the facts available. We don't have ALL the facts. Therefore, anyone who forms a verdict is an idiot. Facts are important. Whining hysteria is not. That's a fact.

 

[8537]

No, in the United States, we use our justice system to establish guilt. We do not 'sense' someone's guilt. At least, rational, intelligent people do not.

Our justice system is built in a jury of one's peers taking in testimony and delivering a verdict based on their sense of what happened.

That's how rational, intelligent people reach decisions. Current company perhaps excluded.

They reach a verdict by considering ALL the facts available. We don't have ALL the facts.

two facts are not in dispute:

1. BP filed a fraudulent claim when they submitted documentation stating that they could control a spill 10x the size of the recent one in deepwater.

2. BP officials made a criminally culpable decision to remove drilling mud and replace it with seawater.

Those are not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is whether Republicans will sweep these criminal activities under the rug in the name of deregulation.

 

[California Girl]

Our justice system is built in a jury of one's peers taking in testimony and delivering a verdict based on their sense of what happened.

That's how rational, intelligent people reach decisions. Current company perhaps excluded.

They reach a verdict by considering ALL the facts available. We don't have ALL the facts.

two facts are not in dispute:

1. BP filed a fraudulent claim when they submitted documentation stating that they could control a spill 10x the size of the recent one in deepwater.

2. BP officials made a criminally culpable decision to remove drilling mud and replace it with seawater.

Those are not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is whether Republicans will sweep these criminal activities under the rug in the name of deregulation.

There are quite a lot of other questions that need to be asked.

Like, why were they drilling there in the first place? That's not where they wanted to drill, that's not where the individual states wanted them to drill. Deep water drilling is more dangerous and more risky. So, who pushed the drilling out?

 

[Mr. H.]

In one sense, yes. But it's hard to argue that no fraud against the government was committed when it submitted paperwork detailing its ability to handle a spill 10x this size. I'm sure Republicans will do their best to make sure the investigation is halted and therefore Mr Barton can convince people that he really did need to apologize. Just like they'll take the teeth out of the Volcker rule and then blame the next TBTF on Financial reform.

The Republicans have nothing to gain by halting such an investigation.

of course they have something to gain by halting the investigation: Joe Barton gets "proved" right in the minds of his constituents, companies flood their coffers with money and Republicans get another chance to exclaim the virtues of the unregulated market. It's like we've seen this story playout before or something...

You're jumping to conclusion based on emotion and ignorance. Seems we've seen this story play out before.

 

[8537]

They reach a verdict by considering ALL the facts available. We don't have ALL the facts.

two facts are not in dispute:

1. BP filed a fraudulent claim when they submitted documentation stating that they could control a spill 10x the size of the recent one in deepwater.

2. BP officials made a criminally culpable decision to remove drilling mud and replace it with seawater.

Those are not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is whether Republicans will sweep these criminal activities under the rug in the name of deregulation.

There are quite a lot of other questions that need to be asked.

Like, why were they drilling there in the first place?

They were drilling there because it's the largest untapped reserve in the gulf region.

But regardless of WHY they were drilling there, the fact remains that:

1. They WERE drilling there, of their own will.
2. They filed fraudulent claims related to drilling there and their ability to control a potential spill.
3. Someone within BP chose to replace drilling mud with seawater, a criminally-culpable decision.

Questions of why they drilled there don't dismiss the criminal aspects of their behavior - but of course, Conservatarians jump on it as an opportunity to NOT blame a company....

 

[8537]

The Republicans have nothing to gain by halting such an investigation.

of course they have something to gain by halting the investigation: Joe Barton gets "proved" right in the minds of his constituents, companies flood their coffers with money and Republicans get another chance to exclaim the virtues of the unregulated market. It's like we've seen this story playout before or something...

You're jumping to conclusion based on emotion and ignorance. Seems we've seen this story play out before.

no, you see - it's because we've seen this movie before that we can know how it ends.

 

[California Girl]

two facts are not in dispute:

1. BP filed a fraudulent claim when they submitted documentation stating that they could control a spill 10x the size of the recent one in deepwater.

2. BP officials made a criminally culpable decision to remove drilling mud and replace it with seawater.

Those are not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is whether Republicans will sweep these criminal activities under the rug in the name of deregulation.

There are quite a lot of other questions that need to be asked.

Like, why were they drilling there in the first place?

They were drilling there because it's the largest untapped reserve in the gulf region.

But regardless of WHY they were drilling there, the fact remains that:

1. They WERE drilling there, of their own will.
2. They filed fraudulent claims related to drilling there and their ability to control a potential spill.
3. Someone within BP chose to replace drilling mud with seawater, a criminally-culpable decision.

Questions of why they drilled there don't dismiss the criminal aspects of their behavior - but of course, Conservatarians jump on it as an opportunity to NOT blame a company....

You're shitting me, right? You're actually claiming that BP wanted to drill there?



Jeeez, no wonder you're stupid.