Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING "Operation LeakS" Releases Initial BofA Emails (166 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think, from what I remember of the law (5+ / 0-)

    that the fact that they have the request and an "Approved." is smoking gun enough.

    Intent to commit fraud.

    "Them as can do has to do for them as can't. And someone has to speak up for them as has no voices." — Terry Pratchett

    by LoreleiHI on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:32:28 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, I agree with you on that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens

      There is indeed a class of crimes where mere discussion of the act is criminal in itself (as long as the discussion is in earnest).  

      Yet, I think the question of whether they actually did go through with it is relevant as to the particular crimes involved, whether anyone was actually defrauded, whether any money was actually "stolen".

      Another question is how far up the BoA hierarchy this went.  The person that said "Approved", was he/she just some middle manager making the approval on his own accord, for example.

      Seems to me that the person that made the original request for approval of the cover up is in trouble, as is the person that "approved" it.  What about the "This just doesn't seem right to me" person?  Is he like Buck Weaver, who didn't approve of throwing the 1919 World Series, but knew of it, and so got punished along with the rest of the Black Sox?  How about if he talked the others out of it?  Would he still be guilty of being in on the discussions?  (I'd think not in that latter scenario, but I don't know.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site