Now you see it in (at) the NY Times . . .

. . . now you don’t.

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?

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: