Thank you President Obama and AG Holder!

[SpidermanTuba]

]
Same with BP's oil leak, if it's determined that it was simply an honest mistake or rather an unfortunate accident, then prosecution is doubtful.

According to who? You? I'm pretty sure the AG gets to make that call!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

]
Same with BP's oil leak, if it's determined that it was simply an honest mistake or rather an unfortunate accident, then prosecution is doubtful.

According to who? You? I'm pretty sure the AG gets to make that call!

According to you. That's exactly what you said, you believe if it was an honest mistake you doubt they would prosecute.

Holder is an idiot and I wouldn't be suprised to learn that you were kin to him.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

]
Same with BP's oil leak, if it's determined that it was simply an honest mistake or rather an unfortunate accident, then prosecution is doubtful.

According to who? You? I'm pretty sure the AG gets to make that call!

According to you. That's exactly what you said, you believe if it was an honest mistake you doubt they would prosecute.

I said I doubt they would prosecute YOU, though if you killed a few thousand pelicans that could change. Clearly the AG is thinking about prosecuting BP, he's said as much! Duh! Basic thinking 101 here!

Holder is an idiot and I wouldn't be suprised to learn that you were kin to him.

Brilliant argument.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

According to who? You? I'm pretty sure the AG gets to make that call!

According to you. That's exactly what you said, you believe if it was an honest mistake you doubt they would prosecute.

I said I doubt they would prosecute YOU, though if you killed a few thousand pelicans that could change. Clearly the AG is thinking about prosecuting BP, he's said as much! Duh! Basic thinking 101 here!

Holder is an idiot and I wouldn't be suprised to learn that you were kin to him.

Brilliant argument.

Not an argument just an opinion

BP has killed thousands of pelicans? I want a recount!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let me get this straight, your entire argument is based on killing pelicans? Of which you, yourself claimed was a misdemeanor.

No. I was asked for an example of laws which BP has violated. They clearly violated this one. Do you want me to do your work for you and find others?

Doesn't just apply to pelicans, but any bird on a list of about 800. And its not just a single misdemeanor. Its one misdemeanor for every bird killed. At $15,000 a pop that can add up.

You're the one making the claim that laws were violated and the best you could do was a misdemeanor. How about you go count all the dead birds you find.

I'll wait.

11 employees were killed.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No. I was asked for an example of laws which BP has violated. They clearly violated this one. Do you want me to do your work for you and find others?

Doesn't just apply to pelicans, but any bird on a list of about 800. And its not just a single misdemeanor. Its one misdemeanor for every bird killed. At $15,000 a pop that can add up.

You're the one making the claim that laws were violated and the best you could do was a misdemeanor. How about you go count all the dead birds you find.

I'll wait.

11 employees were killed.

Tragic accident.

 

[sangha]

You're the one making the claim that laws were violated and the best you could do was a misdemeanor. How about you go count all the dead birds you find.

I'll wait.

11 employees were killed.

Tragic accident.

This was no accident. It was not only forseeable, it was forseen. BP has already released memos demonstrating their negligence and lack of concern for safety.

Prosecutors may not be able to prove deliberate criminal behavior, but the law makes it clear that BP is responsible for the damage they have caused. As it has been pointed out many many times, intent has nothing to do with laws where strict liability applies, and in this case, strict liability does apply.

Furthermore, when it comes to things like reasonable suspicion and probable cause, there is no doubt that such clear proof of criminal behavior (and poisoning those pelicans are a crime) allows the govt to detain, search and otherwise investigate a subject. And in such circumstances, the legal authorities do not delay the investigation.

Only the rightwing supporters of corporate welfare believe the investigation should be delayed.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

11 employees were killed.

Tragic accident.

This was no accident. It was not only forseeable, it was forseen. BP has already released memos demonstrating their negligence and lack of concern for safety.

Prosecutors may not be able to prove deliberate criminal behavior, but the law makes it clear that BP is responsible for the damage they have caused. As it has been pointed out many many times, intent has nothing to do with laws where strict liability applies, and in this case, strict liability does apply.

Furthermore, when it comes to things like reasonable suspicion and probable cause, there is no doubt that such clear proof of criminal behavior (and poisoning those pelicans are a crime) allows the govt to detain, search and otherwise investigate a subject. And in such circumstances, the legal authorities do not delay the investigation.

Only the rightwing supporters of corporate welfare believe the investigation should be delayed.

Where's your proof that it wasn't an accident?

 

[xsited1]

Thank you President Obama and AG Holder!

BP will just contribute more to Democratic politicians and it won't even go to trial.

Oh bull. BP has been a darling of the BushCheney oil cartel.

And the BushCheney oil cartel is different from the Obama Political Machine how exactly?

Ooops:

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com

 

[sangha]

Tragic accident.

This was no accident. It was not only forseeable, it was forseen. BP has already released memos demonstrating their negligence and lack of concern for safety.

Prosecutors may not be able to prove deliberate criminal behavior, but the law makes it clear that BP is responsible for the damage they have caused. As it has been pointed out many many times, intent has nothing to do with laws where strict liability applies, and in this case, strict liability does apply.

Furthermore, when it comes to things like reasonable suspicion and probable cause, there is no doubt that such clear proof of criminal behavior (and poisoning those pelicans are a crime) allows the govt to detain, search and otherwise investigate a subject. And in such circumstances, the legal authorities do not delay the investigation.

Only the rightwing supporters of corporate welfare believe the investigation should be delayed.

Where's your proof that it wasn't an accident?

The word "accident" has connotations relating to intent; specifically a lack of intent. Under the law, when strict liability applies, intent is irrelevant. Therefore, under the law, there is no "accident" exception. Under the law, it is a criminal act, not an accident

 

[xsited1]

Well, I feel MUCH better, now....



James Cameron lends hand to help solve Gulf oil spill at meeting with scientists and engineers


...

I hope he sends a Terminator!

 

[sangha]

BP will just contribute more to Democratic politicians and it won't even go to trial.

Oh bull. BP has been a darling of the BushCheney oil cartel.

And the BushCheney oil cartel is different from the Obama Political Machine how exactly?

Ooops:

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com

Ooops:

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Republicans receive far more campaign money from the oil and gas industry than do Democrats.

So far in 2010, the oil and gas industries have contributed $12.8 million to all candidates, with 71% of that money going to Republicans. During the 2008 election cycle, 77% of the industry’s $35.6 million in contributions went to Republicans, and in the 2008 presidential contest, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain received more than twice as much money from the oil and gas industries as Obama: McCain collected $2.4 million; Obama, $898,000.

This is a decades-long trend, the center says: Since 1990, oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties, with 75% of the money going to Republicans.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, in an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” couldn’t resist weighing in. “Well, Sarah Palin was involved in that election, but I don’t think apparently was paying a whole lot of attention,” Gibbs said. “I’m almost sure that the oil companies don’t consider the Obama administration a huge ally. We proposed a windfall profits tax when they jacked their oil prices up to charge more for gasoline.
“My suggestion to Sarah Palin would be to get slightly more informed as to what’s going on in and around oil drilling in this country.”

and whoops:
[url]http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/25/palin-charges-obama-response-to-oil-disaster-is-driven-by-bp-contributions/

Media Matters further notes:

Like clockwork, media outlets seized on Palin’s accusation and cited Center for Responsive Politics’ calculation that Obama had received $71,051 in BP-linked contributions for his presidential campaign. Only problem is, contrary to Palin’s and the media’s suggestions, all of that money came from BP employees, not BP the company. A spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics confirmed Monday that “the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees.” The CRP spokesman also stated that “Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP’s PAC. And corporations themselves are prohibited from donating directly to candidates from their corporate treasuries.”

Why is this an important distinction? Because Obama raised far more money than any other candidate ever has, therefore, it is completely unsurprising that Obama also received the most amount of money from BP employees. Moreover, BP-linked contributions to Obama’s campaign are a drop in the bucket when compared to Obama’s total campaign haul. In addition to the $71,051 Obama received from BP-linked contributors in 2008, Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign raised $6,000 from BP-linked sources, bringing Obama’s total BP-related campaign contributions to 77,051. This represents less than .01 percent of the nearly $800 million that Obama raised for his campaigns.