Skip to main content

View Diary: Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Uh, well, that's kind of the point. (0+ / 0-)

     In a lawsuit where, say, one has brought a civil action against a company for sexually harassing an employee, injury due to a dangerous product, fraud, whatever the case may be, cutting through the shell games, smoke-n-mirrors shit, double-talk and "I don't recall" roadblocks and barriers to get down to the nut of the facts regarding things such as (1) who THE decision-maker(s) is/are regarding a particular act or omission or set of acts/omissions; (2) who wrote the policy; (3) who developed the protocol; (4) what the chain of command is; (5) when decisions were made; (6) who was responsible for investigating an allegation of malfeasance brought by an employee/consumer/witness; etc., etc., is, indeed, information one wants and needs to gather.

     One "goes after" another party in a lawsuit because, by definition, litigation is done by and through an adversarial system.

     A Congressional Committee "goes after" a corporate shitass like Hayward -- or should "go after" him -- because (a) his company's done great, and in many cases, irreparable, harm to the Gulf of Mexico and millions of Americans who live on or near it and/or make their livelihoods from it; and (b) he, Hayward, made the conscious decision to be evasive about his duties and his company's various acts and omissions leading up to, and in the wake of, this catastrophe.



    "I have to go now. I feel . . . sticky." Anthony Bourdain

    by BenGoshi on Fri Jun 18, 2010 at 06:28:29 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site