Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It worked for Hillary but, apparently, real people can't get away with it.
In this case, the people going to jail were not directly responsible for the screw up nor were they aware of the problem. But, since they were in charge and responsible for providing oversight to ensure that the law regarding safety measures were upheld, the father and son have to spend 3 months in jail.
Compare this to Hillary, who also was also in charge of upholding safety measures but made a conscious decision to break them. In that case, a supposed lack of intent was the only thing preventing charges from being pressed. And the consequences could have jeopardized the entire country. She is just too fucking stupid to know that, if you believe her.
So, lawyers in this latest case argued that it was unfair because the corporate officials had no intent to harm anyone. They had no idea that subordinates were not following the proper procedure. While inspections are necessary to ensure quality control, it's impossible to do that every day. So, the guys at the top are facing jail because lower level employees dropped the ball. Not like the officials set up an insufficient quality control division in their bathroom.
In the end, it's clear that the "lack of intent" defense only applies to a Clinton, no matter how serious the crime.
"The U.S. Supreme Court declined in May to hear the appeals of Austin "Jack" DeCoster and his son, Peter DeCoster, without comment. Both have been sentenced by U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett to serve three months in prison. The sentences jarred the food and drug manufacturing industry because it's rare that corporate officials are held personally responsible for an outbreak of foodborne illness.
Business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the libertarian Cato Institute think tank filed friend-of-the-court briefs backing the DeCosters' appeal of their sentences. The groups argued that it is unfair to send corporate executives to prison for violations that they were either unaware of or that were committed by subordinates. The groups said it's highly unusual to attach a criminal penalty and prison time to executives when there is no proof of intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.
"This sanction will slow business growth and innovation," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
Bennett in his 68-page sentencing opinion filed in April 2015 concluded that prison time was necessary to deter officials from marketing unsafe food.
"Given the defendants' careless oversight and repeated violations of safety standards, there is an increased likelihood that these offenses, or offenses like these, could happen again," he wrote. "The punishment will also serve to effectively deter against the marketing of unsafe foods and widespread harm to public health by similarly situated corporate officials and other executives in the industry."
Egg executives in salmonella case must report to prison
They SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what their subordinates were up too .
Hillary didn't even commit a crime . Unless you want to stretch that espionage law.
What does the State servers have to do with her downloading Top Secret info to her private unsecured bathroom server and then allowing it to be shared with people that did not have clearance?Judge to Clinton: "Did you keep a private email server?"
Clinton: "Yes. As did both my predecessors."
Judge: "Can we examine the emails of those predecessors?"
Attorney for Clinton: "No your honor, they were destroyed when they left office"
Judge: "And no law was broken?"
Attorney for Clinton: "No your honor."
Judge: "Case dismissed!"
More like
Clinton "we turned over 10s of thousands emails . The others were private emails"
Emails go two ways . How can Hillary destroy emails sent from the state department? The department has them on its server .
That's just made up, right wing, bull crap that you CHOSE to believe with no facts to back it up.Hillary knew the rules and violated them. She risked Top Secret and above info knowingly. She also knew that she would never be prosecuted. They have always gotten away with it in the past. From shady banking schemes to taking money from Chinese Intelligence, they have always gotten away with it. The election loss must have crusher her. It's the first time in her life she was told no.
Prime example . Drunk driving .
The driver doesn't intend to kill someone . It's still manslaughter.
Prime example . Drunk driving .
The driver doesn't intend to kill someone . It's still manslaughter.
And yet when Hillary didn't intend to risk national security with a homebrew server, and many operations happened to fail because info was leaked, she didn't face a single consequence.
Rules are rules. Hillary knowingly broke the rules and got off the hook.
These two business people are going to jail over something they didn't know about and are taking the blame because they are in a position of power and had the responsibility to ensure their employees were following safety standards.
By your own admission, intent doesn't matter. If you are responsible for something, you should face the music when shit goes wrong. Unless you are Hillary Clinton.
Except there's no crime saying you can't have your own server .
More like
Clinton "we turned over 10s of thousands emails . The others were private emails"
Emails go two ways . How can Hillary destroy emails sent from the state department? The department has them on its server .
Every bit of it happened and was well documented. The crazy part is, lunatic liberals thought it would be a good idea to make her President. Complete insanity.That's just made up, right wing, bull crap that you CHOSE to believe with no facts to back it up.Hillary knew the rules and violated them. She risked Top Secret and above info knowingly. She also knew that she would never be prosecuted. They have always gotten away with it in the past. From shady banking schemes to taking money from Chinese Intelligence, they have always gotten away with it. The election loss must have crusher her. It's the first time in her life she was told no.
That's just made up, right wing, bull crap that you CHOSE to believe with no facts to back it up.Hillary knew the rules and violated them. She risked Top Secret and above info knowingly. She also knew that she would never be prosecuted. They have always gotten away with it in the past. From shady banking schemes to taking money from Chinese Intelligence, they have always gotten away with it. The election loss must have crusher her. It's the first time in her life she was told no.
Depends on the crime & the circumstances. In Hillary's case you know damn well there was intent.It worked for Hillary but, apparently, real people can't get away with it.
In this case, the people going to jail were not directly responsible for the screw up nor were they aware of the problem. But, since they were in charge and responsible for providing oversight to ensure that the law regarding safety measures were upheld, the father and son have to spend 3 months in jail.
Compare this to Hillary, who also was also in charge of upholding safety measures but made a conscious decision to break them. In that case, a supposed lack of intent was the only thing preventing charges from being pressed. And the consequences could have jeopardized the entire country. She is just too fucking stupid to know that, if you believe her.
So, lawyers in this latest case argued that it was unfair because the corporate officials had no intent to harm anyone. They had no idea that subordinates were not following the proper procedure. While inspections are necessary to ensure quality control, it's impossible to do that every day. So, the guys at the top are facing jail because lower level employees dropped the ball. Not like the officials set up an insufficient quality control division in their bathroom.
In the end, it's clear that the "lack of intent" defense only applies to a Clinton, no matter how serious the crime.
"The U.S. Supreme Court declined in May to hear the appeals of Austin "Jack" DeCoster and his son, Peter DeCoster, without comment. Both have been sentenced by U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett to serve three months in prison. The sentences jarred the food and drug manufacturing industry because it's rare that corporate officials are held personally responsible for an outbreak of foodborne illness.
Business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the libertarian Cato Institute think tank filed friend-of-the-court briefs backing the DeCosters' appeal of their sentences. The groups argued that it is unfair to send corporate executives to prison for violations that they were either unaware of or that were committed by subordinates. The groups said it's highly unusual to attach a criminal penalty and prison time to executives when there is no proof of intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.
"This sanction will slow business growth and innovation," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
Bennett in his 68-page sentencing opinion filed in April 2015 concluded that prison time was necessary to deter officials from marketing unsafe food.
"Given the defendants' careless oversight and repeated violations of safety standards, there is an increased likelihood that these offenses, or offenses like these, could happen again," he wrote. "The punishment will also serve to effectively deter against the marketing of unsafe foods and widespread harm to public health by similarly situated corporate officials and other executives in the industry."
Egg executives in salmonella case must report to prison
Your post didn't age well:Depends on the crime & the circumstances. In Hillary's case you know damn well there was intent.It worked for Hillary but, apparently, real people can't get away with it.
In this case, the people going to jail were not directly responsible for the screw up nor were they aware of the problem. But, since they were in charge and responsible for providing oversight to ensure that the law regarding safety measures were upheld, the father and son have to spend 3 months in jail.
Compare this to Hillary, who also was also in charge of upholding safety measures but made a conscious decision to break them. In that case, a supposed lack of intent was the only thing preventing charges from being pressed. And the consequences could have jeopardized the entire country. She is just too fucking stupid to know that, if you believe her.
So, lawyers in this latest case argued that it was unfair because the corporate officials had no intent to harm anyone. They had no idea that subordinates were not following the proper procedure. While inspections are necessary to ensure quality control, it's impossible to do that every day. So, the guys at the top are facing jail because lower level employees dropped the ball. Not like the officials set up an insufficient quality control division in their bathroom.
In the end, it's clear that the "lack of intent" defense only applies to a Clinton, no matter how serious the crime.
"The U.S. Supreme Court declined in May to hear the appeals of Austin "Jack" DeCoster and his son, Peter DeCoster, without comment. Both have been sentenced by U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett to serve three months in prison. The sentences jarred the food and drug manufacturing industry because it's rare that corporate officials are held personally responsible for an outbreak of foodborne illness.
Business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the libertarian Cato Institute think tank filed friend-of-the-court briefs backing the DeCosters' appeal of their sentences. The groups argued that it is unfair to send corporate executives to prison for violations that they were either unaware of or that were committed by subordinates. The groups said it's highly unusual to attach a criminal penalty and prison time to executives when there is no proof of intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.
"This sanction will slow business growth and innovation," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
Bennett in his 68-page sentencing opinion filed in April 2015 concluded that prison time was necessary to deter officials from marketing unsafe food.
"Given the defendants' careless oversight and repeated violations of safety standards, there is an increased likelihood that these offenses, or offenses like these, could happen again," he wrote. "The punishment will also serve to effectively deter against the marketing of unsafe foods and widespread harm to public health by similarly situated corporate officials and other executives in the industry."
Egg executives in salmonella case must report to prison
