• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Another Justice Dept. Corruption Case

Econ101

Well-known member
This morning on Chris Wallace, they had an AG who was prosecuting the tobacco companies. She stated emphatically and even under questioning, that the Justice Department interfered with her case against big tobacco. She was asking for billions of dollars in remedies and the administration came in, took over her case, and blocked her efforts to ask for a large money damage against big tobacco.

She said that the case was taken over by the Justice department to minimize monetary damages against tobacco companies so there would be no pain for the companies involved in the suit. Then there was an investigation (by the Justice dept) to say that this was not a political decision. The former AG called this a complete whitewash of wrongdoing by the dept. of Justice for corporate interests and to clear the administration of meddling with AG performance in prosecuting the laws of the land.

Absolutely incredible if this happened.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
She wasn't an AG, she was a dept. of justice lawyer. Those above her made her read a prepared closing statement by them in her case and tried to alter testimony by some witnesses, according to "Face the Nation" to favor the tobacco company.
 

memanpa

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
She wasn't an AG, she was a dept. of justice lawyer. Those above her made her read a prepared closing statement by them in her case and tried to alter testimony by some witnesses, according to "Face the Nation" to favor the tobacco company.

maybe just ,maybe. perhaps her superiors saw something the way her case was presented to cause them concern about LOSING the entire case, been done more than once when a jr attorney gets in above their head, had the LA D.A. had done that when Marcia Clark was trying O.J. it might have turned out differently.
too many times egos get involved when they get their hands slapped or under crticizm they grab a crying towel. and yell foul because people get poor little feelings hurt, case in point on this board a lot! :D

I am not saying that is the case here but i do feel there is more to the story than what i can see or hear.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Speaking of investigations- I saw the other day where another White House official and appointee tied to the Abrahmoff investigation, plead guilty to making false statements to Congress about his involvement with Abrahmoff...He is Steven Griles, the former Deputy Secretary of the Interior and #2 man in the Dept of Interior...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/24/MNGEHOQTGL1.DTL

The rumor going around law enforcement circles is that he made a plea agreement- and is going to incriminate and testify against former Senator Burns (former Chairman of the Interior Dept. Committee) and former Interior Secretary Gale Norton...Which the proposed prosecutors recomendation for a sentence ( 5 months imprisonment of what could have been a 5 year sentence) may be indicative of.....

A couple months ago I had a chance to talk with a senior federal law enforcement official I've known for sometime-- and I was criticizing him about dragging their feet on some of the local federal investigation... He acknowledged a problem, apologized, but said he just didn't have the manpower- that a huge amount of his force had been pulled away for the expanding investigation of the Abrahmoff case... He at that time made it sound like a huge area of concentration was on the Interior Department- and involved FBI, GAO, OIG, and Interior Department Investigators...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Econ101
they had an AG who was prosecuting the tobacco companies. She stated emphatically and even under questioning, that the Justice Department interfered with her case against big tobacco.

when did this happen?

The tobacco settlement cases seem to all be "pre-Bush"...
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Steve said:
Econ101
they had an AG who was prosecuting the tobacco companies. She stated emphatically and even under questioning, that the Justice Department interfered with her case against big tobacco.

when did this happen?

The tobacco settlement cases seem to all be "pre-Bush"...

She spoke out on two channels Sunday because she thought there could still be something done on the case. It goes to the appeals court now and that is what she had in mind.

I wish I had a print story for you, Steve, but I just saw it on the news on Sunday morning. If I find one, I will post it.

Whether influence and interference happened under Bush or Clinton to me is not that material. I think they are both just as bad in their catering to corporations who fund their political campaigns. Money doesn't respect party lines and ethics doesn't seem to either.
 

P Joe

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
I think they are both just as bad in their catering to corporations who fund their political campaigns. Money doesn't respect party lines and ethics doesn't seem to either.

How much money did your state receive from the tobacco settlement again?

Who held down this ladies husband and forced him to smoke?

Why is she entiled to billions of dollars?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
P Joe said:
Econ101 said:
I think they are both just as bad in their catering to corporations who fund their political campaigns. Money doesn't respect party lines and ethics doesn't seem to either.

How much money did your state receive from the tobacco settlement again?

Who held down this ladies husband and forced him to smoke?

Why is she entiled to billions of dollars?

The case was a dept. of justice case, not an individual case. I don't know how they got to the damages but it wasn't damages for individual people, it was damages that would go to the U.S. treasury--probably for the extra costs they incur because of tobacco on medicare or other govt. funding for health care.

No one forced anyone to smoke. Making a hazardous product and not labeling the risks, as well as manipulating nicotine levels and erroneous advertising were probable reasons for the lawsuit's success.

We all know the tobacco execs. didn't believe smoking causes cancer---they testified to it to Congress. It was when they weren't paying attention to the "sound science" their own research showed that they really got in trouble.
 

Latest posts

Top