4 ms·
Why would that be your fear? The ruling by the judge was to hand over info by X date or face penalties of $50k per day until it’s done. Obviously they have the
by codeddesign 5y ago
Why would that be your fear? The ruling by the judge was to hand over info by X date or face penalties of $50k per day until it’s done. Obviously they have the right to appeal, but that was the ruling.
In any case, on a side-note: the real issue here is that until power and corruption is limited on both sides of the aisle this will continue. Anyone that thinks one party is more corrupt than the other has a false sense of reality.
Both parties should be disbanded and senators given very short terms in office.
- jfengel 5y agoIf there's no corporation, then there's nobody to do that compliance. You can't get $50k per day out of a nonexistent corporation. And in general, you can't go after the actual people -- the point of a corporation is to limit the liability of the people involved. That corporate veil can be pierced, and it's up to the judge to decide when. It's not at all certain that a judge would decide it's valid in this case. I won't try to talk you out of the equivalence you're drawing, which I believe is false. Even so, I think you should consider that this case represents a serious accusation that turned out entirely false, and it's a positive thing that they are being required to follow the laws about it.