Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How does one acquire the belief prosecutors work against corporations more than they work for them? Our crim codes are entirely focused on property rights. From the state DA nailing the Wal Mart shoplifters to the the feds nailing the Goldman worker for algorithm theft, it’s all the state acting on behalf of those with property. And who holds more property than corporations?
The idea prosecutors are on the other side of the V from corps more than on the same side, enforcing the interests of corps, is indefensible. I say indefensible instead of unsustainable because this argument could only be raised in a very desperate defense. It’s simply Wrong.
|
I'm not really debating any of that with you. I mean, I will if you want me to, but I certainly think you have a point. Be that as it may, it doesn't mean that "corporate" is a good word to use to describe Kamala Harris. Get this: I actually have been a lawyer representing a corporation in a room with Kamala Harris. (The corporation was not in the room with her, except in the sense that a colleague and I were.) I mean, mind blown, right? Did I think she was sympathetic to my client? Well, sure, because she is, among other things, good at being a politician. Did I think she was so in the bag that we needed only to convey to her what we wished for her to do for us? Uh, that would be a "no."
