Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Archbob, Aug 21, 2018.
The people who went to prison after the S&L collapse weren't "Wall Street." They were mostly small town bankers. The frauds that crushed the S&L industry were predominantly local schemes run by local players. "Wall Street" benefited tremendously from the S&L collapse because it eliminated smaller lenders or made them into insolvent targets for profitable takeovers that consolidated the financial services market into the current cartel monopoly.
Make an example of one, and the public are safe from those sort of shenanigans forever.
In all fairness, this is not true if the person hasn't committed any crimes.
Sure, but everyone has.
It doesn't really work this way. You very much don't want allow a police state. Whoever decided to pro-actively reign-in police investigations legally sure made the right choice.
Because we all know who is the real force that empowers government and government choice and decides most meaningful elections in the United States:
"We the Plutocrats..."
"Of the Plutocrats, by the Plutocrats, for the Plutocrats."
Everyone else is just an active or potential labour and/or consumer base.
I believe that there are people that haven't committed a crime.
I'm not counting occasionally speeding or dumb things like that. Things that are serious enough to be put in jail for, or to be impeached.
But anyone that thinks Trump is one of those people is doing better drugs than I've every found.
Receiving stolen property is a crime, serious enough that plenty of people go to jail for it, and I seriously doubt that there is anyone who hasn't done it. There are several others that are also ubiquitous.
I know a few that I would guarantee have never received stolen property. I don't consider myself part of that group however. You really hang with a different crowd.
I've never knowingly purchased stolen property although since I've bought from market stalls, car boot sales and junk shops I probably have.
I have purchased bootleg music, d/l a pirated game (for my mum), and illicit substances. I know lots of people who consider themselves law-abiding who'd happily commit insurance fraud or tax evasion.
I know a few that would never buy from any of those types of sources. (because of paranoia) But i'll admit they are very few, so in general he is correct but not always.
You also don't want to allow false positives. You're also screwed if they're wrong, or make a mistake. Or if you trigger a bias in the investigator . You don't need to be guilty to be fearful of an investigation. The mindset of you "shouldn't mind an investigation if you're innocent" is worth confronting at all stages of the partisan divide. It can create great evil.
But you can't handwaive away things like speeding because endless investigations will dig up stuff like that and weaponize it. Bill Clinton's impeachment started as an investigation into a property deal that went bad. When that failed to turn up anything useful, they just kept going until they found out he received oral sex (which isn't a crime) and then cornered him into perjury. Obviously, it was the perjury that got him impeached and no one forced him to lie but it was the endless investigations which turned up something not illegal that wound up putting him in a place that he committed a crime to protect himself and his family. So yeah, you can't ignore the most trivial of crimes when we're talking about endless investigations because they can be weaponized just as potently as something like oral sex in the hands of someone malicious and competent enough.
Shoutout to Boofin Bretty K for the role he played in that prosecution. He whined about 'being ambushed' by his own misdeeds during his confirmation hearing when in reality it was just a small taste of what he orchestrated behind the scenes to prosecute Clinton. He pushed Ken Starr hard enough to go over every lurid detail of Clinton's personal life that even Starr ended up pushing back and told him to calm the hell down.
Simple solution. Don't lie.
Key word is knowingly. That by the way is a word that is conspicuously absent from the vast majority of iterations of the applicable law. First hand is also not generally included. So, if I show up at the corner drug store with a load of what I claim are bootlegged cigarettes and entice the owner into a good tax dodging deal, but I actually got them by jacking a truck...then whoever buys them from that seemingly legit corner drug store is in fact receiving stolen property even though none of the people involved in their particular transaction even knows it. I do move in a pretty unusual crowd, and because of that I have a different view on just how much stolen merchandise is actually moving through legitimate stores...and then there's the internet.
Now, this conversation started with "the cops if they wanted could dig deep enough into anyone to get them." I'm not suggesting that on any given day some cop is going to randomly check the seal number on that pack of smokes you just walked out of a corner drug store with and run you for receiving. But in terms of the original point, if they want you in particular no amount of "well, I just won't commit any crimes" is enough to save you. For one thing, if they really want you the cops themselves have plenty of stolen property to work with. They'll just arrange for some to be sold to you.
I realize the key word. If the cops set you up to buy stolen property at a drug store, there's no way you're ever going to be convicted by a jury unless you're a known mobster. If you're not convicted, you didn't break the law. (technically)
I'm just saying that claiming everyone is a criminal is a tad too broad for my tastes and too general to be absolutely true. I have conceded the most would fall under your claim.
I can live with that.
On a related note, I read somewhere several years ago that basically everyone involved with an internet server, should the authorities be so inclined, could be arrested on porn trafficking and/or software piracy charges. The way the laws were written if the "contraband" being "transported" was facilitated by your equipment you became technically responsible for it. At the time there was some pressure to re-write those laws, but the authorities were basically standing on "well, we would never enforce them that way, trust us." Dunno what ever came of that, but since you are an IT guy you may very well be a porn trafficker. And you said that *I* ran with the wrong crowd!
PORN IS ILLEGAL?????????
But most of these obscure things will not ruin a person's career.
No comment on the crowd I hung with.
Well, some of it is. And that was the kind that the big internet services like Yahoo were really concerned about. Perv A sends Perv B some kiddie porn by e-mail, and it ends up on Yahoo's server. The feds, in their never ending quest to own all the equipment, under the laws existing at the time, could have walked into Yahoo and confiscated their entire investment. And "we just won't, trust us" was not really all that much of a comfort.
Separate names with a comma.