3 ms·

Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-clout-has-an-inhibiting-impact-on-prosecution

Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-clout-has-an-inhibiting-impact-on-prosecutions/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-... I also remember reading a book about epo and J&J. There the situation also was that the government prosecutors were reluctant to touch the case because they knew J&J would outspend them with their lawyers. Then a private lawyer took on the case and after years reached a settlement but in the process was close to bankrupting his law firm.

ambicapter 5y ago
How the hell do you outspend the federal government (Lemme guess, you lobby congress or curry favor with the executive to put limits on the amount of spending you can do on cases that look suspiciously like yours).
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > How the hell do you outspend the federal government? Veey easily if you are a big corp and its an existential threat; the DoJ has lots of funding, sure, but also lots of competing priorities.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  Very simple. These agencies are underfunded. The IRS also can’t afford to do enough audits.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008 I am not disputing the existence of the general phenomenon, I am saying the facts of the immediate case (including those directly in the article) contradict the assertion that it is the factor responsible for the decision at issue in the case under discussion.