I thought it was an ethical violation to threaten criminal action to bring about a civil settlement. During settlement negotiations, the Justice Department held out the threat of a criminal case against S.&P., the people said.
UPDATE: Now this is interesting. The part about criminal threats is now missing from the NY Times story, though the phrase still shows up in a search. I wonder why it was removed? [italics added]
This in reporting appearance of punishment by feds of S&P, in wake of its downgrading U.S. rating. Regarding which Roger Kimball:
We are living with the most fiscally incontinent administration in U.S., perhaps in world, history. Both S&P and Moodys took note of this incontinence and broadcast the news by downgrading U.S. debt in 2011. The result? A $1 billion law suit against S&P. Merely post hoc? Or do you discern a teensy bit of propter hoc there as well? I do.
Post hoc meaning after something, propter hoc because of it. Mere succession (coincidence) or result?
The intrigues in this drama are many. Does Californias Democratic Party come down on the side of low income Californians, who desperately need the jobs and state services new oil extraction will fund? Or does it come down on the side of a green lobby that is heavily backed by some of the wealthiest people in the state? To what extent does the wealthy coastal elite control the future of the inland poor in California?
Some of my best friends are greenies, but I don’t share their religion.