5 ms·

That sounds a lot harder to prove than if they were going for negligence.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> That sounds a lot harder to prove than if they were going for negligence. Well, it was solid enough that Boeing was willing to pay $2.5 billion plus accept a bunch of behavioral controls not to settle the charges, but simply to get a deferred prosecution agreement in which, if they were really good, they wouldn’t have to face charges for it.
hgyjdetjj 2y ago
Lying is quite easy to prove with a few incriminating emails.
- wsc981 2y ago
  One reason why the Dutch PM uses an old Nokia phone with very limited capacity, so he needs to delete SMS messages often: https://archive.ph/q6a3l https://archive.ph/q6a3l And I don't think he emails much :)
  - ThunderSizzle 2y ago
    Deleting official communications can be a violation of law in the US. Hilary should've gone to jail for it, but she didn't because she's a Clinton.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - barkbyte 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - ThunderSizzle 2y ago
        [flagged]
        barkbyte 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ThunderSizzle 2y ago
        Well, it's a WP hit piece, so it serves as well TP as far as I'm concerned - whixh I guess we need a lot of with how much crap we have to put up with today. Regardless, I don't I want my news fed to me by Bezos's empire. Regardless, Clinton was never president, but she's afforded significantly more grace by the MSM than Trump ever has been. If this was about Clinton, WP's article would just say something to the tune of: yeah, she did it, but it's alright because she's a Clinton.
        barkbyte 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- P_I_Staker 2y ago
  Which have already been made public
fargle 2y ago
well for one thing, simple negligence is not criminal negligence. Fraud is criminal, so it is intentionally harder to prove. and i think don't criminal negligence really applies here, but if so would have an equally high bar. what happened also seems to fall much more squarely under fraud (e.g. lying to the FAA) than simple negligence. failing to notice that they missed steps or didn't complete paperwork would be negligent (which they probably have done), but existing criminal case is about intentionally lying about a design change and it's ramifications to game the certification process. that's really bad. way worse.

> That sounds a lot harder to prove than if they were going for negligence. Well, it was solid enough that Boeing was willing to pay $2.5 billion plus accept a bunch of behavioral controls not to settle the charges, but simply to get a deferred prosecution agreement in which, if they were really good, they wouldn’t have to face charges for it.

hgyjdetjj 2y ago

Lying is quite easy to prove with a few incriminating emails.

wsc981 2y ago
One reason why the Dutch PM uses an old Nokia phone with very limited capacity, so he needs to delete SMS messages often: https://archive.ph/q6a3l https://archive.ph/q6a3l And I don't think he emails much :)
- ThunderSizzle 2y ago
  Deleting official communications can be a violation of law in the US. Hilary should've gone to jail for it, but she didn't because she's a Clinton.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - barkbyte 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - ThunderSizzle 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - barkbyte 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ThunderSizzle 2y ago
        Well, it's a WP hit piece, so it serves as well TP as far as I'm concerned - whixh I guess we need a lot of with how much crap we have to put up with today. Regardless, I don't I want my news fed to me by Bezos's empire. Regardless, Clinton was never president, but she's afforded significantly more grace by the MSM than Trump ever has been. If this was about Clinton, WP's article would just say something to the tune of: yeah, she did it, but it's alright because she's a Clinton.
        barkbyte 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
P_I_Staker 2y ago
Which have already been made public

fargle 2y ago

well for one thing, simple negligence is not criminal negligence. Fraud is criminal, so it is intentionally harder to prove. and i think don't criminal negligence really applies here, but if so would have an equally high bar. what happened also seems to fall much more squarely under fraud (e.g. lying to the FAA) than simple negligence. failing to notice that they missed steps or didn't complete paperwork would be negligent (which they probably have done), but existing criminal case is about intentionally lying about a design change and it's ramifications to game the certification process. that's really bad. way worse.