5 ms·

How do we determine that there’s corruption? If we did that by just pointing out that something looks or feels like it, why not treat all crime this way? There

by hakunin 11d ago

How do we determine that there’s corruption? If we did that by just pointing out that something looks or feels like it, why not treat all crime this way? There is a reason we created a judicial system. Things very often look and feel completely not how they really are. There exists unprosecuted corruption for sure, just like any other crime, but claiming that it’s somehow happening on an outsized scale vs expected normal baseline? Based on what? Listening to people pointing it out who have everything to gain from selling this narrative? Conjecture and vibes? Again, things can be complicated, even bad. That doesn’t mean they’re corrupt until there’s credible evidence specifically of corruption taking place.

DANmode 11d ago
> why not treat all crime this way? Because government and law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. Here’s the closest and easiest reach to obvious regulatory capture from the other scumbag party: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute—if we do bring a criminal charge—it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.” Lots of Americans are aware of regulatory capture. Yet: folks aren’t even discussing fixing it yet. Everyone is just pointing and mentioning, like a meteor is coming. Where does this fall in your argument? This looks more than “complicated” - whatever that means (please do better).
- hakunin 10d ago
  That's kind of my point. This was a descriptive, not a prescriptive statement, of a real problem. He literally says that it is concerning that prosecuting large institutions can cause economic harm. He isn't saying they won't prosecute, he says it's difficult because of the downsides. Holder made a mistake of wheeling out a complex nuance to a public that isn't prepared to handle it. I don't understand where is the evidence of malicious force trying to self-serve? Anything specific that points to corruption here? Is this like "yay, Holder gave us a loophole! We just need to build an incredibly large, successful business, and now it will be difficult for Holder to prosecute us, so we can finally start being corrupt"? Is that what you're saying? What large successful business would want to squander it all on corruption on an off chance that the economic inconvenience would save them from prosecution? They are the most incentivized to identify and remove that sort of PR and legal cancer from their org.
  - DANmode 10d ago
    > He isn't saying they won't prosecute That was the direct context of his statement. > Is that what you're saying? I’m saying you’re dangerously shit at reading between the lines if you don’t see the scheme when an ex-government person gets $400k+ per instance to show up and speak to financial institutions they/their administration didn’t prosecute out of profitability (or even majorly inconvenience their compliance department). > What large successful business would want to squander it all on corruption on an off chance that the economic inconvenience would save them from prosecution? They are the most incentivized to identify and remove that sort of PR and legal cancer from their org Plenty. All the way back before the East India Trading Company - work your way out from there. Many business structures and owners only follow laws as is convenient - expected, if the only true consequence is a $$,$$$ speeding ticket and/or inconvenience ls that the ownership is insulated from.
    - hakunin 10d ago
      > He isn't saying they won't prosecute > That was the direct context of his statement. He prosecuted them, and chose fines over criminal punishments. If this was due to maliciousness or corruption, I'm glad that whoever openly explained it all in this interview gave up his plot. /s > I’m saying you’re dangerously shit at reading between the lines if you don’t see the scheme when an ex-government person gets $400k+ per instance to show up and speak to financial institutions they/their administration didn’t prosecute out of profitability (or even majorly inconvenience their compliance department). I'm saying that you're so good at reading between the lines, that you no longer see the lines. You say all these random facts, but aren't connecting them to prove any corruption. If our judicial system worked the way you read between the lines, we'd all be in prison. > All the way back before the East India Trading Company What happened in 1600s has zero bearing on what happens today. Even the world in the 80s and 90s is no longer remotely the same. > if the only true consequence is a $$,$$$ speeding ticket Nobody ever actually knows what fine they will get. One day it's a fine, another day it's a judge making an example. No business exec in their sane mind would ever risk this. No lawyer in a sane mind would ever advise this. It's an incredibly uninformed, foolish position to only see a couple of perverse incentives, and be completely blind to the overwhelming amount of positive incentives.
DANmode 11d ago
> Listening to people pointing it out who have everything to gain from selling this narrative? Sorry - what are you implying I have to gain from “selling this narrative”?

by hakunin 11d ago

DANmode 11d ago

> why not treat all crime this way? Because government and law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. Here’s the closest and easiest reach to obvious regulatory capture from the other scumbag party: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute—if we do bring a criminal charge—it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.” Lots of Americans are aware of regulatory capture. Yet: folks aren’t even discussing fixing it yet. Everyone is just pointing and mentioning, like a meteor is coming. Where does this fall in your argument? This looks more than “complicated” - whatever that means (please do better).

hakunin 10d ago
That's kind of my point. This was a descriptive, not a prescriptive statement, of a real problem. He literally says that it is concerning that prosecuting large institutions can cause economic harm. He isn't saying they won't prosecute, he says it's difficult because of the downsides. Holder made a mistake of wheeling out a complex nuance to a public that isn't prepared to handle it. I don't understand where is the evidence of malicious force trying to self-serve? Anything specific that points to corruption here? Is this like "yay, Holder gave us a loophole! We just need to build an incredibly large, successful business, and now it will be difficult for Holder to prosecute us, so we can finally start being corrupt"? Is that what you're saying? What large successful business would want to squander it all on corruption on an off chance that the economic inconvenience would save them from prosecution? They are the most incentivized to identify and remove that sort of PR and legal cancer from their org.
- DANmode 10d ago
  > He isn't saying they won't prosecute That was the direct context of his statement. > Is that what you're saying? I’m saying you’re dangerously shit at reading between the lines if you don’t see the scheme when an ex-government person gets $400k+ per instance to show up and speak to financial institutions they/their administration didn’t prosecute out of profitability (or even majorly inconvenience their compliance department). > What large successful business would want to squander it all on corruption on an off chance that the economic inconvenience would save them from prosecution? They are the most incentivized to identify and remove that sort of PR and legal cancer from their org Plenty. All the way back before the East India Trading Company - work your way out from there. Many business structures and owners only follow laws as is convenient - expected, if the only true consequence is a $$,$$$ speeding ticket and/or inconvenience ls that the ownership is insulated from.
  - hakunin 10d ago
    > He isn't saying they won't prosecute > That was the direct context of his statement. He prosecuted them, and chose fines over criminal punishments. If this was due to maliciousness or corruption, I'm glad that whoever openly explained it all in this interview gave up his plot. /s > I’m saying you’re dangerously shit at reading between the lines if you don’t see the scheme when an ex-government person gets $400k+ per instance to show up and speak to financial institutions they/their administration didn’t prosecute out of profitability (or even majorly inconvenience their compliance department). I'm saying that you're so good at reading between the lines, that you no longer see the lines. You say all these random facts, but aren't connecting them to prove any corruption. If our judicial system worked the way you read between the lines, we'd all be in prison. > All the way back before the East India Trading Company What happened in 1600s has zero bearing on what happens today. Even the world in the 80s and 90s is no longer remotely the same. > if the only true consequence is a $$,$$$ speeding ticket Nobody ever actually knows what fine they will get. One day it's a fine, another day it's a judge making an example. No business exec in their sane mind would ever risk this. No lawyer in a sane mind would ever advise this. It's an incredibly uninformed, foolish position to only see a couple of perverse incentives, and be completely blind to the overwhelming amount of positive incentives.

DANmode 11d ago

> Listening to people pointing it out who have everything to gain from selling this narrative? Sorry - what are you implying I have to gain from “selling this narrative”?