U.S. attorney general opens criminal probe of Gulf oil spill

[sangha]

All you have to argue about is semantics. But I suppose that's all you got, so go for it.

LOL!!!

I'd bet dollars to donuts that you don't understand what the word "semantics" means without looking it up (and even then)

Again, it does not mean what you think it means

Nice deflection. Your concession is duly noted.

I just *knew* you didn't know what it means

 

[Lonestar_logic]

LOL! So if I find a dead bird soaked in oil, the fact he's soaked in a toxic substance isn't good enough proof that he was killed by that toxic substance?



What if I found 1000 dead birds soaked in oil?

No that's not proof the oil actually killed the bird, it could be the bird was dead before it was soaked in oil. The only way to know for sure is an autopsy. But in all honesty, I could care less about a dead bird.

You didn't find a thousand dead birds and you haven't produced one dead oil soaked pelican neither.

Ummm, as much as I hate to rain on your little speculation parade (ie very little) tests on the birds have proven that they died from exposure to oil from the BP leak.

Obviously you have reading comprehension problems or you would know that dumbshit was talking hypothetically, as in "IF I find a dead bird soaked in oil........".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

LOL! So if I find a dead bird soaked in oil, the fact he's soaked in a toxic substance isn't good enough proof that he was killed by that toxic substance?



What if I found 1000 dead birds soaked in oil?

No that's not proof the oil actually killed the bird, it could be the bird was dead before it was soaked in oil. The only way to know for sure is an autopsy. But in all honesty, I could care less about a dead bird.

Somehow I think a jury would find a statistical study based on the normal death rate of birds and the number of dead soaked birds convincing enough.

You didn't find a thousand dead birds and you haven't produced one dead oil soaked pelican neither.

That's the point of the INVESTIGATION which you OPPOSE!

My GOD you right wing nutballs are such NAZIS. "You have no proof there is wrongdoing, so there will be no investigation to find such proof! Heil Corporation! Heil Corporation! Heil Greed!"

Are you really, seriously, this ******* retarded? Really? Is this a joke?

23 dead birds is not what I would call convincing evidence.

I haven't opposed any type of investigation. I don't get wound up over a few dozen dead birds.

 

[Vast LWC]

criminalize demonize criminalize demonize criminalize demonize..

Oh, I see, you're just talking about what you do to Obama every day. OK, I get it now.

At least you're admitting it.

link?

Link to what?

You demonizing Obama and implying that he's a "criminal"?

Shall I just post a general link to the USMB and be done with it, or would you like me to link all the specific posts you have made in this regard? (which would surely number in the thousands)

 

[Vast LWC]

Makes me feel better.

What's to stop the other oil companies from doing it again if no-one pays the price?

Somebody needs to go to jail.

For what? Even Holder can't say at this point a crime was committed.

Number of willful, egregious, safety violations in the past 3-4 years:

Sunoco: ...................... 8
Exxon: ......................... 1
BP: ........................... 760

Now, admittedly, my primary source for the above information was Jon Stewart, but I checked HIS source's (George Stephanopolous) sources, and they were accurate.

Seems like a case for criminal investigation to me.

The term "Criminal negligence" comes to mind.

 

[Vast LWC]

BP had nearly 100 times the willful, egregious safety violations as it's nearest competitor.

That's pretty effing criminal.

 

[Vast LWC]

Makes me feel better.

What's to stop the other oil companies from doing it again if no-one pays the price?

Somebody needs to go to jail.

Yep.. Exxon and Shell are just itching for the chance to get THEIR names splashed across TV screens because they've caused an environmental disaster. It does so much for a company's bottom line, you know.

Really?

So, Exxon's profits decreased after the Valdez disaster? ROFL. Think again.

 

[Vast LWC]

No but you can throw company employees in jail if they are criminally negligent.

Exactly.

 

[Vast LWC]

I would hope that the investigation begins in Washington D.C. and goes back to ALL those involved with okaying deep water drilling. Should have been mandatory that ALL state-of-the-art safety devices be used regardless of the cost.This goes back a few elections I am sure.

As in this case would be like the average person spending 2¢ extra for a safety device for their car to prevent it from breaking into open flame on the highway, maybe less relative to the % of respective incomes.

I think the 'finger pointing' begins in Washington D.C. and spreads out from there. It isn't JUST BP's fault.

No, no, no.

The BLAME starts at the SOURCE. In this case the people making the money, BP.

The trail then leads to all the people involved, including those in Washington, yes.

 

[Vast LWC]

Again, you winger.. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY 'PERP'

If there were evidence of a PERP this would indeed be different.... this is not the case

What the US government is doing at this point is interrupting the doctor who is still working on saving the patient..... and even if the doctor can be later charged with malpractice, the doctor is not going anywhere... and I don't see the US taking over the situation to free up BP personnel from their attempts at solution, now do we?

Interruption, drawing ones involved away from the solution, taking time out of their involvement in the solution process does BY NATURE impede the bringing about of the solution....

The information is going nowhere... it will still all be there... and a complete investigation will and should be done.... AFTER THE SOLUTION.... if they wish to ask questions of those not involved from BP, knock themselves out... but they are not going to obtain ANY information from those not involved, that is going to be of ANY use until after the information is gathered when full access is available to everything after the gusher is stopped... when detailed research can be conducted at the site, when engineers from the site and involved in the solution can be debriefed and interviewed, when all data from beginning to end can be gone over with a fine tooth comb....

We did not invade Iraq solely because of evidence pointing to WoMD capabilities.. please read the resolution before you look even more ignorant than you do now

And I don't think I have asked 'you want fries with that' ever in my career... but handle equipment and systems that are worth thousands of times more than you will ever earn in your lifetime.... and was responsible for problem solving in the most life threatening of situations in my military career... I don't need to have any belief of some snot-nosed winger... my life, skills, career, and reputation mean something... a message board winger's belief is worth less than an expired coupon from last year's paper

760 willful violations in a field where the average number is about 5.

Yeah, I'd say that was "evidence of a PERP".

 

[sangha]

No that's not proof the oil actually killed the bird, it could be the bird was dead before it was soaked in oil. The only way to know for sure is an autopsy. But in all honesty, I could care less about a dead bird.

You didn't find a thousand dead birds and you haven't produced one dead oil soaked pelican neither.

Ummm, as much as I hate to rain on your little speculation parade (ie very little) tests on the birds have proven that they died from exposure to oil from the BP leak.

Obviously you have reading comprehension problems or you would know that dumbshit was talking hypothetically, as in "IF I find a dead bird soaked in oil........".

The only comprehension problem I'm having is comprehending why you think a hypothetical situation is in any way relevant to the situation being discussed when it's been proven that the birds died from exposure from BP's oil

I think your comprehension problem is your failure to comprehend that what is being discussed is the BP oil spill that HAS killed birds. You don't comprehend that your little sub-thread came up in relation to a discussion on whether BP had committed any crimes. The answer is that they killed birds which are protected by law.

Whether or not a bird lying in a pool of oil proves it died from the oil is irrelevant because these birds died from BP's oil. It has been proven.

The death of your hypothetical birds has no relevance to BP liability. It only serves to boost your ego with the possibility that you will "win" some irrelevant triviality.

 

[Vast LWC]

Please cite your evidence that BP 'caused' the oil to spill... it has yet to be determined at all... because that type of investigation can only properly be conducted with access to everything including the site, failed equipment, systems controlling the equipment, persons involved with the equipment at the time of failure and during the fix action, etc

If BP is found negligent or criminal in it's actions... go after 'em.... knock yourself out... should BP be involved in the cleanup and responsible for it?? Yep, and have already stated they will be doing so

There is no root cause or reason for the incident... as all necessary evidence to determine that is not yet available....

The winger's contention of a BP 'perp' or definite cause of the incident is utterly laughable

Finding this evidence would in fact be the point of "opening a criminal investigation".

I'd say the 760 flagrant violations I described above would be enough standing for the investigation to proceed.

Duh.

But here's a link to the source:

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No that's not proof the oil actually killed the bird, it could be the bird was dead before it was soaked in oil. The only way to know for sure is an autopsy. But in all honesty, I could care less about a dead bird.

Somehow I think a jury would find a statistical study based on the normal death rate of birds and the number of dead soaked birds convincing enough.

You didn't find a thousand dead birds and you haven't produced one dead oil soaked pelican neither.

That's the point of the INVESTIGATION which you OPPOSE!

My GOD you right wing nutballs are such NAZIS. "You have no proof there is wrongdoing, so there will be no investigation to find such proof! Heil Corporation! Heil Corporation! Heil Greed!"

Are you really, seriously, this ******* retarded? Really? Is this a joke?

23 dead birds is not what I would call convincing evidence.

Seriously, read the large text above - I can't make it any bigger.

I haven't opposed any type of investigation. I don't get wound up over a few dozen dead birds.

"Shouldn't they identify the cause before they pursue a criminal investigation?" - YOU

 

[sangha]

"Shouldn't they identify the cause before they pursue a criminal investigation?" - YOU

The rightwingers arguments are so bizarre that even they don't believe them.

This one thinks they should be able to identify the cause BEFORE the investigation. You just can't make this shit up (but they can)

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the space of a few days the wingnuts have gone from Obama was too soft on BP, to Obama is too tough on BP.

A textbook symptom of the derangement syndrome.

 

[CurveLight]

From the Washington post:

U.S. attorney general opens criminal probe of Gulf oil spill
By Theresa Vargas
Washington Post
June 1, 2010

NEW ORLEANS -- Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Tuesday that his office is using "the full weight" of its investigative power to pursue criminal and civil investigations into the oil spill that has devastated the Gulf Coast.

"The Department of Justice will ensure that the American people do not foot the bill for this disaster and that our laws are enforced to the fullest extent possible," he said.

Git 'em.

They continue international kidnapping, ignore iraq wmd bowlshit, keep gitmo open, ignore data mining, and ignore torture.....but a ******* oil line accident gets their investigative juices flowing. What a bunch of cowardly assholes.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

From the Washington post:

U.S. attorney general opens criminal probe of Gulf oil spill
By Theresa Vargas
Washington Post
June 1, 2010

NEW ORLEANS -- Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Tuesday that his office is using "the full weight" of its investigative power to pursue criminal and civil investigations into the oil spill that has devastated the Gulf Coast.

"The Department of Justice will ensure that the American people do not foot the bill for this disaster and that our laws are enforced to the fullest extent possible," he said.

Git 'em.

They continue international kidnapping, ignore iraq wmd bowlshit, keep gitmo open, ignore data mining, and ignore torture.....but a ******* oil line accident gets their investigative juices flowing. What a bunch of cowardly assholes.

 

[KissMy]

Goldman Sachs sold $250 million of BP stock before spill

Goldman Sachs stock sale was nearly twice as large as any other institution; Represented 44 percent of total BP investment. The brokerage firm that's faced the most scrutiny from regulators in the past year over the shorting of mortgage related securities seems to have had good timing when it came to something else: the stock of British oil giant BP.

According to regulatory filings, RawStory.com has found that Goldman Sachs sold 4,680,822 shares of BP in the first quarter of 2010. Goldman's sales were the largest of any firm during that time. Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP's stock during the quarter.

If Goldman had sold these shares today, their investment would have lost 36 percent its value, or $96 million.

Barack Obama is the #1 recipient of Goldman Sachs total campaign contributions.

Obama took $1,058,395 of Goldman Sachs campaign money.

Goldman is Obama's second largest donor.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Goldman Sachs sold $250 million of BP stock before spill

Goldman Sachs stock sale was nearly twice as large as any other institution; Represented 44 percent of total BP investment. The brokerage firm that's faced the most scrutiny from regulators in the past year over the shorting of mortgage related securities seems to have had good timing when it came to something else: the stock of British oil giant BP.

According to regulatory filings, RawStory.com has found that Goldman Sachs sold 4,680,822 shares of BP in the first quarter of 2010. Goldman's sales were the largest of any firm during that time. Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP's stock during the quarter.

If Goldman had sold these shares today, their investment would have lost 36 percent its value, or $96 million.

Barack Obama is the #1 recipient of Goldman Sachs total campaign contributions.

Wow, how surprising that a Presidential candidate would be the most popular choice of the employees of a given company to give their political donations to, who would have thought? Certainly this must be some big conspiracy. Most people give their money to candidates for city council and county coroner, not President!

Obama took $1,058,395 of Goldman Sachs campaign money.

What you mean to say is that employees of Goldman Sachs together totaled $1058395 in their contributions to Obama.