FIFA in the news

Three points in regards to this:
1) You have absolutly no say in it much less the ability to deny the US to do it. (For which we are thankful)
2) The US is not meddling in the business of FIFA it is investigating and prosecuting individuals whom they believe have broken the law.
3) The US isn't using FIFA in the conflict which Russia seems intent on pushing.

This analogy is so broken it's not worth deconstructing.

Good thing that's not what's happening isn't it. Of course that may be part of why Russia made such a big deal of it. Trying to gain allies as it were.

Again it's hardly what is happening. It's also rather clear that a number of African countries have serious problems with corruption.

More speculation on your part. It's closer to the mark than most of what you post but that's not saying much now is it?

 

Again you demonstrate that you simply don't understand English or that you like to create strawmen, both are possible. Here I'll make it clear to you. If someone spends $100M on something and $90M (or $10M for that matter) are legal and the rest illegal in either case their is a problem but in neither case was $100M a bribe. Thus your statement about the amount of the bribes is almost certainly wrong.

You have been presented with very clear proof that the US justice system did not turn a "blind eye" on what happened in the US. Furthermore it is quite clear that the cases we are talking about do indeed involve things that are the business of the US. So another illogical fallacious rant on your part.

Good thing that's not what is happening isn't it.

Which is happening.

IMO and quite obviously many others it's not.

That's your opinion. Given the accuracy of your opinions to date the odds favor those of us who disagree.

Hardly unexpected from a Russian symp like you though.

 

So we shouldn't enforce our laws because Russia percieves this as an attack? Especially since it is very likly they are doing so because they are indeed guilty of related activities and fear they will come to light. The fact that journalist may be pointing this out and even suggesting penalties in no way justifies Russias actions or suggest that the US should not enforce its laws. Indeed quite the opposite.

It's hardly irrelevant. If "he did the crime and doesn't want to do the time" such actions make sense. I'll admit I was perhaps being generous to say he had a concious. I could have said instead that it was a cynical and decietful attempt to either limit what is brought to light or blunt the damage done by it. Hopefully it won't work though. That clearly in no way justifies either the original actions or the follow on ones. Unfortunatly Putin himself is unlikly to face a judge and jury for this.

 

I like to make the distinction, at least at this point, that it's officials within FIFA and not the organization that are being charged. Indeed FIFA may well be the biggest victim in this.

 

Corruption that widespread among the leaders, damns the entire organization.

 

Why unfortunately ?

As usual prone to judge and condemn other people who are not fitting in your biased dreamworld.

If the Russians are satisfied with Putin,case is closed : you are not Russian, you should not judge him .Besidesutin did not violate US laws and US laws are not applying to Russia :maybe you don't know ;Russia, SA, France, Qatar, are independent states,not a part of the US ,and, FYI:independent means that the FBI should stay out of these countries .

 

No : in a lot of countries,corruption is accepted and corruption is damning no one and nothing .

 

This fanatical obsession of the Liberals to mould the world to the image of what they think the US should be (but what a good thing too the US are not) will make them regret the day .Thank God,there are a lot of sensible people between Seattle and Boston (excepted in Michigan) who stick to the principle that the business of the US is to do business and that what the US need is a good 5 cent cigar .

Putin should be in prison because he is corrupt : an other oneliner of the do-gooders

 

2)NOT correct : Lynch said it publicly : I will not tolerate the corruption of the Fifa.She said not : I will prosecute individuals who have broken the law .

3)That there is corruption in African countries is not your business,and it is not clear that these countries have problems with corruption : they have no problems with corruption: they accept corruption as a fact of live and if someone is not happy about is, they will say that he is a racist neo-colonialist (translation : don't meddle with our business)

 

Corruption is very harmful to any nation and it's people and in this day of International commerce and relations it damages other countries too to include the US It must not be tolerated where it is found. Unfortunately, even when caught, some corporations and organizations manage to avoid criminal charges and settle the matter for a small monetary penalty.

 

Some economists would disagree : see :"Bad corruption,good corruption and growth" by Maxim Mironov (University of Chicago)

Zaire and Indonesia were both corrupt:at the end of the rule of Mobutu,Zaire was a chaos ,while under Soeharno Indonesia experienced a big growth .India is very corrupt,but that did not prevented India to become an economic world power .

 

Because it is unfortunate when anyone gets away with crimes or alternately has no opertunity to prove themselves innocent of the same. In Putin's case it is very likely that he is both guilty of a considerable number of crimes and innocent of a significant number of which people think he is guilty of.

Not really but given your lack of comprension of ethics, morality, and reallity your opinion is not unexpected.

It is amazing how wrong you can be. That's like saying the Germans were satisfied with Hitler case closed. By the way Putin very likely has violated US laws not that he will be prosecuted for them. You also seem to have a rather flawed concept of what independence means. As for the Russian satisfaction with Putin, I would put more weight on it if it were based on the facts of the case but it pretty clearly isn't.

Opinions by those on ethics by those who don't even acknowledge their relevance are worthless. Of course your opinions have been proven to be worthless for the most part in any case.

Thou art waxing incoherent, still. I do agree with the first part of your last sentence though. Putin should be in prison because he is corrupt. That's not the only reason though nor is it a "oneliner" of any merit.

Are you really that dense? When she is refering to corruption she is obviously referring to illegal acts and her lack of tolerance for the same is demostrated by the prosecution of those for whom she has sufficient evidence.

It is the business of the US if it is having significant impact on the US which it is in some cases. It is also quite clear that many countries in Africa have problems with corruption. That they are willing to tolerate it doesn't mean that it isn't a problem. The same applies to many other countries around the world and has nothing to do with "racist neo-colonialist". Some may try to frame it that way to excuse it but that doesn't make it true.

Shotgun referencing again I see. Care to site specific references. I can see where there might be isolated instances where corruption might have some benefits. But I'll hold off in defintie opinions until I see just what the argument really is.

The above certainly doesn't make a case for corruption being of any merit it simply indicates that if corruption isn't too bad progress is still possible.

 

Lynch having a lack of tolerance for corruption ? And,who was the person working for Hogan and Hartson,who defended an Arthur Anderson partner who cooked the books for Enron ? The twin sister of Lynch ?

And who was accused by the Center for judicial Accountability of corruption (HAHA) and of whom did the Center ask Obama to withdraw her nomination as AG ? The twin sister of Lynch ?

 

Thus illustrating further that you simply don't understand the US justice system. Would also like to see some sources on exactly what she did in this regard and ones that confiremed that it was the correct Loretta Lynch. There is at least one other attourney by that name that has played a role in some pretty high profile political cases.

Care to post some sources? Nothing I saw by them looked very convincing. Apparently I'm not alone in that opinion. But if you have something you think of import PLS produce it.

 

sources:

Holder's corrupt legacy lives on in Loretta Lynch

Fifa indictments reveal Loretta Lynch's hypocrisy

 

??? Those are simply statements not sources.

Perhaps they are titles to articles somewhere but that's a long ways from an acceptable source. Doesn't even qualify as shotgun sourceing.

 

LJAd is just too lazy to post links to the articles...So, he just posted the titles.

Not worth following up on though...The former article is from a well-known conservative Jewish website(FrontPage Magazine) and the latter is from a well-known Qatari propaganda machine(Al-Jazeera). Neither source makes any attempt to present an un-biased well-informed article.

As for the Center for Judicial Accountability...Seems to me that Ms. Sassower is not above breaking the law to further her own cause. She was arrested and convicted of "Disruption of Congress," a federal misdemeanor, and served a jail sentence of 6 months. Further, the bee in Ms Sassower's bonnet seems to stem from her March 23, 2001 complaint against Ms. Lynch being turned down as "unsupported by any evidence and without merit." It appears that Ms. Sassower knows how to carry a grudge, and neither forgives nor forgets.

 

The facts remain

that 46 senators (the overwhelming majority of the Republicans) opposed her nomination as AG

that she has been attacked and by Jews and by America allied Muslims

that as a lawyer she defended white-collar criminals

that as an attorney for NY she was soft in prosecuting white-collar criminals

that she has not the moral authority to broadcast that she will not support corruption in the Fifa


Besides : what she support or not is irrelevant,her mission is to execute the law ,not to make public her private feelings .

 

Partisan politics.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? You cannot please everybody all of the time.

That was her job...You work for a company, you have to do what they say.

It appears that she made the pay some very steep fines, this is hardly being "soft". Further, she cost a few Republican and Democrat government officials their jobs by prosecuting them, again this is hardly being "soft".

It is her job not to support corruption...In Fifa or otherwise.

Wait...What???

Her mission is to execute the law????
Yet, you have done nothing but complain how it is not her job to execute the law. Now, suddenly, you turn around and say it is her job to execute the law.

I believe you have now outranked Ms. Lynch in the Hypocrisy Department.

 

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? You cannot please everybody all of the time.








It is her job not to support corruption...In Fifa or otherwise.


1) If you can't do this, you should not enter in politics

2) If it is in the interest of the US to support corruption abroad,or to increase corruption abroad,it is her job to support this. You can not go in politics using moral principles.

3)It is not her job to insult and alienate the few remaining US allies,of course, sshe is following the exemple of her boss ,the world especialist in such things .

Obama has succeeded into alienating SA by meddling in the domestic affairs of SA (whining because someone was flogged),into alienating Syria by insulting the Syrian dictator,into alienating Libya by intervening in the civil war,into alienating Egypt by supporting the former ISIS president .

Now,the the pupil is trying to be a match for the master (surpass would be impossible):insulting SA, accusing Brazil,Oman and Morocco,annoying France (France also was bribing),hindering Hillary to become president :Bill received a lot of money from Qatar for his foundation ( of course: that's what Obama wants :Hillary must not become president)

And about hypocrisy : why is she not attacking Obama ? After all ,Obama is doing the same as Oman and Russia : Karzaii from Afghanistan receives a lot of money from the CIA and the CIA followes the orders of the president .

It will take a long time before someone will be a match in hypocrisy for Lynch . A very long time .