Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOJ Closing Abbott Labs Case Spurs Wider Corporate Crime Retreat

news.bloomberglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 112 posts

Re: DOJ Closing Abbott Labs Case Spurs Wider Corporate Crime Retreat

#51

Post by ceejayoz »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #50
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're worried about the Trump administration lying about what they talked to the Russians about. A translator with loyalty to the USA might request what they heard.

Which is an even more fanciful conspiracy theory since the objection was Trump not bringing his own translator, a person he could otherwise personally select for their loyalty to him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/us/politics/trump-putin-i...

> Only Mr. Trump, who has alternately contradicted his own narrative of what was said and complained about a lack of fair coverage from a meeting only four people witnessed, could permit Ms. Gross to tell anyone about what she heard. The White House has not said whether Mr. Trump has asked her to do that.

Re: DOJ Closing Abbott Labs Case Spurs Wider Corporate Crime Retreat

#52

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ceejayoz wrote: post #49
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like the same class of complaining about something ridiculous. If Putin wants to lie to you about something, do you expect him to speak the truth in Russian and then have his translator tell you something else? What advantage would that have compared with lying to you in Russian and having it translated accurately?

> If Putin wants to lie to you about something, do you expect him to speak the truth in Russian and then have his translator tell you something else? Why not? The only other person in the room doesn't speak Russian.

You expect Putin of the KGB to presume the person he's speaking to doesn't have a recording device or the ability to remember the words he used and have them translated by someone else later? And if he did think that, wouldn't that be an advantage to the US of doing it that way, to capitalize on the chance he lets his guard down? And if he did let his guard down and Trump failed to capitalize on it, what disadvantage would the US suffer from that compared with the situation where he knows there is a US translator in the room and doesn't say it to begin with?

Re: DOJ Closing Abbott Labs Case Spurs Wider Corporate Crime Retreat

#53

Post by ceejayoz »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #52
ceejayoz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Putin wants to lie to you about something, do you expect him to speak the truth in Russian and then have his translator tell you something else? Why not? The only other person in the room doesn't speak Russian.

You expect Putin of the KGB to presume the person he's speaking to doesn't have a recording device or the ability to remember the words he used and have them translated by someone else later? And if he did think that, wouldn't that be an advantage to the US of doing it that way, to capitalize on the chance he lets his guard down? And if he did let his guard down and Trump failed to capitalize on it, what disadvantage…

> You expect Putin of the KGB to presume the person he's speaking to doesn't have a recording device…

Yes, I absolutely expect that sort of security at such a meeting.

Re: DOJ Closing Abbott Labs Case Spurs Wider Corporate Crime Retreat

#54

Post by sbayg »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #47
ceejayoz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not quite the same; JFK et. al. weren't dumb enough to trust the Russians during those contacts. This administration, though… https://www.nbcnews.com/world/russia/russia-ukraine-war-trum... > President Donald Trump’s special envoy broke with long-standing protocol by not employing his own interpreter during three high-level meetings with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, opting instead to rely on translators from…

This seems like the same class of complaining about something ridiculous. If Putin wants to lie to you about something, do you expect him to speak the truth in Russian and then have his translator tell you something else? What advantage would that have compared with lying to you in Russian and having it translated accurately?

Just because most of critics are brain dead morons doesn’t mean Trump is a great guy or above the same level of scrutiny shown to previous presidents.

Re: DOJ Closing Abbott Labs Case Spurs Wider Corporate Crime Retreat

#55

Post by sculper »

solid_fuel wrote: post #41
complianceowll wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This urge to defend the indefensible and “both sides” the most corrupt administration in American history is exactly the problem. Go take a look in the mirror.

Worth noting that the commenter you're replying to is only LARPing as a centrist. The comment history of his other (now-banned) accounts are directly at odds with some of the "truths" he claims to have realized.

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=complianceowl

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=owlcompliance

Re: DOJ Closing Abbott Labs Case Spurs Wider Corporate Crime Retreat

#56

Post by sandworm101 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #46
sandworm101 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pro rich people crimes. They remain very much against poor people who break the law.

> They remain very much against poor people who break the law. Plenty of those pardoned for their acts on Jan 6.

People with the time/money/energy to travel to DC for such things are not poor. They may claim poverty but the fact they made the trip, more often than not, evidences substantial disposable time/income.

Re: DOJ Closing Abbott Labs Case Spurs Wider Corporate Crime Retreat

#58

Post by JumpCrisscross »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #30
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> here in America, sometimes CEOs get shot as well No, they don't. The UnitedHealth dude who got shot had a CEO title, but Thompson was ultimately a middle manager. The actual CEO of UnitedHealth Group–the one who signs off on its financial statements and fields quarterly calls–and the billionaire owners were fine. Which explains, in part, why nothing changed after the shooting.

You're implying that something would have changed if a different person was shot instead. Structural problems don't work like that. The individual players have the incentives created for them by the system. To change it you need to change the game, not the players.

> You're implying that something would have changed if a different person was shot instead. Structural problems don't work like that

It would have sent the message its sender (and his supporters) intended to send. Instead, both sides got a convenient totem. Luigi's supporters get to pretend he was effective. The billionaire class got to consolidate power here and there by pretending he was more than a one off, and by pretending he was competent.

Re: DOJ Closing Abbott Labs Case Spurs Wider Corporate Crime Retreat

#59

Post by lux-lux-lux »

ChrisLTD wrote: post #35
mmooss wrote: post #29

Ironically, it's not just the ineffectuallity of the DOJ (intentional, in that case), it's the ineffectuality of the political competition, the Democratic Party, to hold the GOP accountable. The Dems inability to cash in on these things is so absurd that people just accept it: The Trump administration and GOP are letting a company get away with contaminating baby formula . That should be repeated by the Dems from now…

The Supreme Court gave Trump immunity, stymieing Democratic attempts at holding him accountable for crimes he was accused of in his first presidency. Holding him accountable this time would require some workaround for the Supreme Court.

Why not just ship him to CECOT? Official acts bro

Re: DOJ Closing Abbott Labs Case Spurs Wider Corporate Crime Retreat

#60

Post by ceejayoz »

sandworm101 wrote: post #56
ceejayoz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They remain very much against poor people who break the law. Plenty of those pardoned for their acts on Jan 6.

People with the time/money/energy to travel to DC for such things are not poor. They may claim poverty but the fact they made the trip, more often than not, evidences substantial disposable time/income.

Quite a few got public defenders, so nah.

Some presumably lived near and didn’t have jobs.

Post reply on HN