Scrushy acquitted on all counts.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/scrushy28.html

Government corruption is tied directly to big business interests and always has been.

 

Do you take that on faith, because I can't seem to find a single piece of relevant literature supporting this conclusion.

 

Very few people seek power in government for its own sake.

 

...or this one...

 

Making or manipulating the rules to benefit those who have the money to pay for it is all too common, probably in every country.

 

...or this one. In fact, it looks like you pulled all these "facts" out of thin air.

 

Rev Prez

It's not just big business that corrupts government. Special interests often represent non-corporate entities and belief systems.

 

I've found nothing to support either Phi's or your belief that commercial and advocacy interests are generally, inherently and pervasively corrupting; in fact, there's first order evidence to the contrary. Countries with stronger and more diverse commercial and political advocacy outscore countries with less on the Corruption Perceptions Index [1]. Fairness and justice, unsurprisingly, are found in great abundance in the OECD nations, countries where the presence of big business is strongest and where the freedom of advocates to organize and petition their government is greatest. You can speculate on reasons why.

 

Rev Prez

Simple question: Should the testimony of convicted criminals who have been offered a plea bargain in exchange for their testimony be sufficient on its own for the prosecution of a third party, given the absence of any other evidence?

 

What about a co-conspirator of the defendant offered immunity for his testimony? Should courts except testimony from eye-witnesses with a personal relationship to the case detrimental to the interests of the defense--say with the victim? More to the point, since forensics bears no animosity towards anyone, should we try cases on that basis alone? And in fact, why not get rid of all sources of human error and replace the jury with a computer? In short, what's so special about the bargained testimony of a convict that you'd uniquely exclude it?

 

Prosecutors have a high burden to pass anyway. The testimony has to be sufficiently sincere to convince a judge to admit it; a judge that has next-to-final say on any evidence presented at trial. The defense is free to challenge it on cross or appeal on any number of statutory and constitutional grounds. So what's the problem?

 

 

Rev Prez

Interesting question. Since the 5 CFO's are proven criminals through deception, then by definition they're proven liars....I think.

 

A case the defense is free to make on cross. The question is who should decide if the testimony is false, a judge or the jury?

 

Rev Prez

Scrushy acquitted on all counts.

 

 

Yeah, that's a shame. Well, you win some you lose some.

Yeah, that's a shame. Well, you win some you lose some.

I don't know enough about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but I'm surprised Scrushy wasn't held accountable under it. I thought it states that the CEO is responsible for certifying the accuracy of all financial reports.

 

The new board and management team don't want him back regardless.

Apparently they're taking another shot at Scrushy, by the way, focusing on some counts that were thrown out earlier, and trying him in federal district court in Atlanta which will produce a non-home-town jury.