by Cagefighter 38 Replies latest social current
The President has done nothing criminal to BP - he is acting within his legal authority.
I can find this "legal authority" you speak of. Not that I disagree with BP being help responsible I just don't see how this happens without a court order?
Can he come take my money next if he decides I am responsible?
I just don't see how this happens without a court order?
Because BP agreed to it. You could call it "settling out of court."
BTW, your buddy who gave you the term "shake down" (Joe Barton) is going to eat his words. He has possibly gifted the Dems with many 2010 election victories (especially in the Gulf states.)
LOL, Barton could get caught in a KKK outfit raping a pig and a dem wouldn't take that district...
Back to the point... So if BP agreed to this as an out of court settlement, what gave Obama the right to negotiate this. Let's say I am a shrimper in Louisiana and I don't get all that I feel is coming to me? Do I sue BP and they sorry this was part of the 20 Billion settlement? Do you see my point? We don't have Judges and Lawyers around for nothing. There is a legal system before taking private property in this country.
Get real. BP was under no legal threat. Sure they had a lot of public pressure, but that's from us folks wielding our public opinion.
Ok morons.
Go back and read about the presidential powers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Powers_and_duties
On his trip to the Gulf today, President Obama criticized BP for spending millions of dollars on a new public relations campaign addressing the Gulf oil crisis, and also for planning to pay $10 billion in dividends to investors. “They’ve got a moral and legal obligation to the Gulf,” Obama said, according to a White House pool report. The president added he doesn’t want BP “nickel and diming the folks down here.”
Then Obama addressed the question of damages and other financial claims against BP. According to the pool report, BP and Coast Guard officials whose job it is to handle claims “are stationed with each parish president in Louisiana, and [Obama] wants the same arrangement for county governments in all the affected states.”
At that point, the pool report says Obama “lit into BP” because he wants to — Obama’s words — “make sure that BP is not lawyering up essentially.”
Just two days ago, Attorney General Eric Holder traveled to Louisiana to announce that the Justice Department has begun criminal and civil investigations into the oil spill. As a result of that investigation, BP and other companies could be charged with violating a variety of environmental laws, as well as other crimes. Holder pledged to prosecute any offenders “to the fullest extent of the law.” The prosecution could result in enormous penalties and losses for BP beyond what has already occurred because of the spill. And now the president himself goes after BP for “lawyering up.” The company certainly has huge obligations as a result of its actions in this matter. But surely the constitutional-law-professor-in-chief would concede their right to a legal defense. If you were facing a full-scale federal investigation in which the attorney general personally pledged to punish you “to the fullest extent of the law,” you might well consider lawyering up.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/with-doj-threatening-prosecution-obama-slams-bp-for-lawyering-up-95647809.html#ixzz0r8g1OfQv
Look I got no problem BP being held responsible but if someone touches my kid I can't just have them drawn and quartered in the street with out a trial...... geez.
Enduring criticism from partisans of every stripe for his response to the accidental gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, Mr. Obama managed last night to convey that he’s deeply upset about the disaster and angry at BP. And this being a crisis, he naturally took the opportunity to put his moribund climate legislation back in play.
He promised to throw a new and improved bureaucracy at the disaster. And at BP, he threw what is an unprecedented and possibly illegal exercise in presidential authority.
As expected, Mr. Obama announced his intention to pressure BP into establishing an escrow fund to cover future payouts related to the Gulf spill. While Congressional Democrats have already suggested that BP bring the fund to life with a $20 billion deposit, Mr. Obama daintily avoided the issue of how many tens of billions the British company should pony up.
Tellingly, Mr. Obama declined to cite any legal authority for the escrow fund, about which he plans to “inform” BP CEO Tony Hayward tomorrow. We don’t believe the President has the power to force a corporation to set aside money for future, undetermined and open-ended obligations. It is a precedent fraught with potential for abuse.
Most of the Oval Office oil talk was given over to resurrecting Mr. Obama’s green agenda and, as before, the arguments were slippery. He blamed deep-water drilling on the scarcity of oil when he has blocked drilling in Alaska and in shallow water along both coasts. His moratorium on drilling makes us more dependent on the very foreign imports he deplored last night.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/17/morning-bell-an-offer-bp-couldnt-refuse/
BP has identified $20 billion worth of assets in the United States that the federal government now has a lien on. In the event of a bankruptcy, guess who gets to jump in line and have their claims honored first? Still guessing? Then ask Chrysler's secured creditors.
Yesterday’s “voluntary” deal between BP and the Obama administration was nothing less than a continuation of President Barack Obama’s ongoing assault on the rule of law. Capitalism only succeeds if it is a profit and LOSS system. Well-managed firms should have every right to keep their profits, but mismanaged firms must be allowed to suffer losses. By all accounts of what transpired on the Deepwater Horizon, BP is a terribly mismanaged firm. If the damage they caused is great enough, they should be allowed to fail. Failure is a necessary component of capitalism. But this administration refuses to allow the rule of law to work. From Fannie Mae to Freddie Mac, from GM to Chrysler, from AIG to Citibank, our government continues to subvert the established rule of law. This lawlessness creates uncertainty in the business environment, and it is a huge reason why our economy is not recovering as it should be.
Maybe he's The Antchrist.
???
