Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
18 U.S.C. 2511, according to the smart folks at Overlawyered. Violations of it give rise to a private right of action with statutory damages (18 U.S.C. 2520(c)(2)), which presumably is why the immunity provision was proposed.
|
oh. sorry, that would be "what law might have been broken." but you have answered Ty's initial question, or Ty's blog of the day's question, "why would bush insist on the immunity before he signs"........ and all you guys focus now "the extension the congress is apparently getting ready to pass." To not insist on the immunity would render the extension meaningless, no company would get involved.
Here all you guys are hatching hair brained theories about how many bad things the companies did, when you don't know fuck all about what they did.
And you are the reasonable ones. Imagine how many lawsuits the extreme libs at daily kos et al might bring.
Don't you see how that would frustrate Peloisi and Teddy K's desire to see the extension work?
Poll: do you think GGG cheers for his team when they foul off a good fastball, calls it a win?
