What it actually is is “We’re going to get these guys for something”, when the real crime is that they spoke out against climate change. So they are pursuing maybe prosecuting them under “misleading shareholders”, even though their statements were for the public domain, not directed at shareholders specifically. It’s a baldfaced attempt to prosecute speech by trying to find another statute to charge them under. It’s a common prosecutor tactic, but not one that should ever be rewarded by promoting such types to higher office.
You may be right about the fishing expedition, but public statements are more material with regard to information given to the market than communications only shareholders are privy to. Lying in the public domain is not a mitigating factor; it’s a magnifying one.
Bendy, flexy. It’s this. No it’s this. Oh, you have a video, it’s this.
You’re a dishonest shit. Not that I think you should go to jail for it. 
What they were engaged in was advocacy of a political nature. That is protected under the 1st amendment. Let’s be clear, this isn’t even a real fishing expedition. It’s rube bait, only this time the rubes are progressives. None of the AGs actually intends to accomplish anything, they are just “taking a stand” so that you’ll remember their names when the Democratic primaries for Senate and governor come up this year or in 2-4 years.
It’s perfectly reasonable to look into seeing if the lying cunts you support, did anything illegal while they were lying to the American people for decades.
No it’s not. You look into if people are doing something illegal when you have evidence they’ve done something illegal. Looking into whether someone is doing something illegal because they said something you don’t agree with has another name.
So are they pursuing and/or prosecuting these firms, or are they just making public statements they don’t intend to act on? Do make up your mind.
Ah.
Is that name, Benghazi?
Jesus you’re stupid. Carbon producing companies knew climate change was happening, and worked to disguise that. Looking over their actions to make sure none of the were illegal is perfectly reasonable. If it turns out that someone made a comment under oath, or paid off someone when it wasn’t kosher, that’s what investigations are for.
But no, stupid assholes like you will cluck about teh freedomz!
Don’t be naive. You know that they are being looked into because of their public statements. If they had lied under oath, they’d already be investigated for that.
Instead, they are angry at some corporations, so they will try to find something they did wrong.
Like the cigarette companies?
You, saying this, after everything you’ve written over the years about Benghazi, the IRS “scandal”, the AP “scandal” and plenty of other manufactured bullshit that you’ve defended long and hard – it’s no wonder my irony meter exploded and then melted through the floor.
I don’t know if the AGs have anything substantive to go on, but I do know that you don’t know either. Keep fucking that chicken, man.
Why can’t you just take this as an opportunity to do better and be more accurate with your posts? It’s not hard to avoid mischaracterizing the facts.
This is a good point.
Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
You can disable the Tapatalk sig by going into options. I just figured that out.
I thought he was just bragging.
A stupid liberal idea of the day…
The Obama administration is defending a certain aspect of immigration law that is a throwback to the 1950s, literally. Lynch v. Morales-Santana is pending before the High Court thanks to the Justice Department’s decision to appeal the lower court order throwing out an aspect of immigration law related to derivative citizenship.
To understand this case you need to remember that American citizens who have children abroad do not automatically pass American citizenship to their children unless certain requirements are met.
At the time Morales-Santana was born the law required that if the American citizen parent is a male then he must “legitimate” the child before the child’s 18th birthday and the American citizen parent must have lived in the United States (or one of its territories) at least **ten **years before the child was born AND five of those years must be after the American citizen parent reached age 14. Only then can he pass along American citizenship to his child.
But if the American citizen parent is a female then she must only have lived in the United States (or one of its territories) at least **one **year prior to the child’s birth. Only then can she pass along American citizenship to her child.
The father of Morales-Santana had lived in Puerto Rico more than ten years but was a few days shy of the five years required after his fourteenth birthday when his son was born. As such Morales-Santana’s petition for derivative US citizenship was denied.
If instead Morales-Santana’s mother was the American citizen parent with the same time of residence then there is no question his application for derivative citizenship would have been approved.
So Morales-Santana sued. And the lower court (2nd circuit) agreed with him. This aspect of the law, treating children differently depending upon which parent is the American citizen, is bullshit.
But the Obama administration’s Justice Department has appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. I’m hoping the High Court will just refuse to grant cert and let the lower court decision stand.
I expected better of this administration but their stance looks like a full on embracing of birther bullshit.
It’s a 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act provision that has already been repealed. I guess this sucks for Mr. Morales-Santana, but it’s not as though there is a significant precedential issue here.
It’s arguably a Stupid Administration Idea of the Day. But I’m not seeing the “Liberal” part.
Defending duly passed laws of Congress is something an administration just does except in very unusual circumstances. I’m sure if this case was a hot button as the DOMA case the President might have done what he did there, but since the President finds out about things by reading the paper, and this isn’t in the paper, he doesn’t know about it.
I see that despite a recent trend where you occasionally make reasonable points, your rightwing cognitive bubble still hasn’t been breached.