3 ms·
I'm certain they paid, that's why they are making ambiguous statements. I hope they prosecute them for this payment. An indirect payment is still a criminal act
by NotSammyHagar 6y ago
I'm certain they paid, that's why they are making ambiguous statements. I hope they prosecute them for this payment. An indirect payment is still a criminal action in my opinion. If the mafia said they'd burn their building down or kill their ceo or whatever, and they paid them off through some abstract indirect transaction it would still be wrong.
This should make them a direct target now, they will pay you off. Among many many reasons allowing payments like this will just encourage these criminals to keep doing this bullshit.
- sukilot 6y agoI don't want to live in a country where the government prosecutes victims of crimes instead doing its primary duty of national defense against foreign attackers.
- NotSammyHagar 6y agoThat sounds great in theory, don't prosecute victims of crimes. The govt. must go after these people, regardless of victimization. Yet if the victim encourages more dangerous actions and the 'victim' was a billion dollar corporation they can afford it. It shouldn't be legal to pay off mafia threats, and that's what this basically is. Who is the victim in prostitution (where no one was trafficed), how about if I buy pot, who is the victim where it's illegal? That theoretical vision of how you want society to work is not matched by the reality of the US.