DOJ giving money to leftist groups

[davew]

DOJ slush fund giving money to leftist groups ????

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/01/gop-wants-to-eliminate-shadowy-doj-slush-fund-bankrolling-leftist-groups.html

[woodtoo]

The round up is underway, the swamp will be drained.:rip:

[Track Collector]

Just another reason why a significant number of members of both parties are so vehemently against Trump and his administration.

When you are a part of the swamp, you are going to fight tooth and nail all efforts to drain and clean you up.

To paraphrase a caller I heard recently on one of the radio talk shows: When you are in the air and you feel the turbulence of the bombs exploding around you, you are over the (correct) target and it is time to open the bomb door!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Here's the part of the story that the fake news over at Fox doesn't report, not that most of you are actually interested in the whole story unless it fits the evil narrative.

Obviously the DOJ is responsible for prosecuting anyone who violates federal law, and almost always either the conviction or plea bargain results in a fine. Often the entities that are fined are offered the option of funding a project instead, and many of them opt to do that than pay the fine directly because it gives them a better story. Instead of saying they were fined for a violation, they get to say they helped out a non-profit.

Obviously if you are going to be magnanimous you don't give the money to Exxon.

The other perception thing is that it doesn't look like the government is going after companies just to line their own pockets.

The companies were the ones driving that process.

[boxcar]

Here's the part of the story that the fake news over at Fox doesn't report, not that most of you are actually interested in the whole story unless it fits the evil narrative.

Obviously the DOJ is responsible for prosecuting anyone who violates federal law, and almost always either the conviction or plea bargain results in a fine. Often the entities that are fined are offered the option of funding a project instead, and many of them opt to do that than pay the fine directly because it gives them a better story. Instead of saying they were fined for a violation, they get to say they helped out a non-profit.

Obviously if you are going to be magnanimous you don't give the money to Exxon.

The other perception thing is that it doesn't look like the government is going after companies just to line their own pockets.

The companies were the ones driving that process.

Hey, Einstein, who gets to choose the "non-profit"?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'll say this. Whether or not the changes to the site are working well, I certainly wish there was a block feature that could totally exclude boxcar from reading or responding to anything I said. Using ignore has pretty much kept me from engaging with him anymore, which has certainly cut down on uselessly wasting my time.

I had decided I need to avoid a lot of the negative back and forth posting, although boxcar certainly makes it a trial.

Case in point. I post an answer based on actual experience, and the worst of the worst just can't help himself in taking a smarmy shot at me instead of simply asking the question, who decides where the money goes.

Despite the fact that he'd have to improve his personality threefold just to make it to deplorable, I'll give him a straight answer.

The first time I was involved with it the attorney for the company being fined (for violation of the wage price controls on oil as I recall) asked if it would be possible to fund something useful instead just throwing the money at the government. I made three proposals and told the lawyer if his client was good to pick one, which they did.

The fact was that most companies were receptive to the idea. Even funding something being done by a non-profit was preferable to paying the government.

[OntheRail]

I

The first time I was involved with it the attorney for the company being fined (for violation of the wage price controls on oil as I recall) asked if it would be possible to fund something useful instead just throwing the money at the government. I made three proposals and told the lawyer if his client was good to pick one, which they did.

The fact was that most companies were receptive to the idea. Even funding something being done by a non-profit was preferable to paying the government.

So the Company had no choice other then the ones YOU picked,,, It's not like they could of picked say The NRA... it's a non profit.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

So the Company had no choice other then the ones YOU picked,,, It's not like they could of picked say The NRA... it's a non profit.

Look, the attorney asked me to make proposals and I did. The company still could have rejected them. It was the company's choice to go that way. Whether or not the company had something in mind, I don't recall them saying.

Not to overemphasize the obvious, but if YOU get convicted you don't get to tell the judge how you're going to do your time. In this case, the company came pretty close to that.

You're looking for something nefarious and it was all on the up and up. Nobody forced anybody to do anything, or made them fund abortions at planned parenthood.

[delayjf]

Obviously the DOJ is responsible for prosecuting anyone who violates federal law, and almost always either the conviction or plea bargain results in a fine. Often the entities that are fined are offered the option of funding a project instead, and many of them opt to do that than pay the fine directly because it gives them a better story. Instead of saying they were fined for a violation, they get to say they helped out a non-profit.

Obviously if you are going to be magnanimous you don't give the money to Exxon.


Are there no restrictions to "donating" the money to groups that are politically active. Did the DOJ provide the company with a list of acceptable "projects" to donate to? How long has this been going on? It sounds like something the Clintons would implement. I would be curious to know if their were donations made to the NRA or to the Tea Party?

[incoming]

I'll say this. Whether or not the changes to the site are working well, I certainly wish there was a block feature that could totally exclude boxcar from reading or responding to anything I said. Using ignore has pretty much kept me from engaging with him anymore, which has certainly cut down on uselessly wasting my time.

I had decided I need to avoid a lot of the negative back and forth posting, although boxcar certainly makes it a trial.

Case in point. I post an answer based on actual experience, and the worst of the worst just can't help himself in taking a smarmy shot at me instead of simply asking the question, who decides where the money goes.

Despite the fact that he'd have to improve his personality threefold just to make it to deplorable, I'll give him a straight answer.

The first time I was involved with it the attorney for the company being fined (for violation of the wage price controls on oil as I recall) asked if it would be possible to fund something useful instead just throwing the money at the government. I made three proposals and told the lawyer if his client was good to pick one, which they did.

The fact was that most companies were receptive to the idea. Even funding something being done by a non-profit was preferable to paying the government.

Does a spider every get caught in its own web......apparently, sometimes.:D

[riskman]

In addition to paying fines for their wrong doing they should spend some time in jail.
Jail time would help to discourage future unlawful acts of this nature.
In some cases some of these law breakers continue working with the same companies or move onto others unscathed. Fine example we show. Crime pays depending who you are in this country. Others you would be executed for similiar wrong doings.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

O

Are there no restrictions to "donating" the money to groups that are politically active. Did the DOJ provide the company with a list of acceptable "projects" to donate to? How long has this been going on? It sounds like something the Clintons would implement. I would be curious to know if their were donations made to the NRA or to the Tea Party?

I was never involved in a fine being "donated" to any group. It was always an ad hoc specific project. I have no idea if the DOJ had a bag of projects they picked from. It was the 80's when I was involved. That was the Reagan years, but I'm sure it was going on through Clinton and Bush. If it was going on under Bush, I'd be shocked if there weren't projects done by conservative groups.