DOJ Closing Abbott Labs Case Spurs Wider Corporate Crime Retreat

(news.bloomberglaw.com)

105 points | by petethomas 4 hours ago

4 comments

  • josefritzishere 2 hours ago
    The administration seems to be pro-crime, which is very problematic.
    • vannevar 2 hours ago
      Given that the President is a convicted felon who maintains that what he did was fine, and that he has pardoned thousands of unrepentant criminals, and that the vast majority of his party enthusiastically endorsed all this, I would say "pro-crime" is an understatement.
      • Kapura 2 hours ago
        _strongly_ pro-crime
        • br0ceph 2 hours ago
          on a daily basis the current US president commits treason against the people of the united states, which im pretty sure even presidential immunity doesnt protect against. Just one of the shady dealings with foreign monarchies, laudering their bribes directly to the president thru billion dollar purchases of worthless crypto "assets" ala world liberty financial; should land the president and his entire family in capital punishment
        • toyg 1 hour ago
          Strong for crime, strong for the causes of crime.
    • sharts 5 minutes ago
      Every administration caters to its donors.
    • hightrix 1 hour ago
      This admin is pro-money. Anything and everything can be bought. Pardons, contracts, legal outcomes, you name it. Bribe trump and he'll do whatever you ask.
    • complianceowll 30 minutes ago
      Let's not pretend: we haven't had an anti-crime president in a while.

      I was once brainwashed and my thinking was, "If only 'my' side could take control, this country would be utopia." 15+ years later, here are some truths I've realized:

      - It sounds conspiratorial to say, "they want us to absolutely hate each other because that's the only way the party keeps going for the corrupt politicians", but when you think about it, it's 100% true. We may disagree on abortion, but do we disagree on preserving our great nature, lakes, rivers, and the purity of our environment? No. We all agree that is something good. Yet, federal, state, and local governments sell out our communal beauty for filthy lucre.

      - We all agree that instead of unnecessary wars, that money could instead be put towards infrastructure, development, healthcare, education, creating more opportunity for the next generation. Instead, the status quo never changes regardless of which party is in office.

      - We all agree that our food should not poison us. Yet government makes it basically illegal to raise livestock and grow produce and sell it to your neighbors. Big pesticide agriculture for the win. The peasants must eat glyphosate.

      - We all agree that our country and its benefits must be primarily for its citizens. Yet politicians insist on handouts to grow their voter base while our people are homeless, replete with mental health problems, and struggling.

      - We are all anti-abuse-of-authority, yet our politicians foment extreme ideological views like "Support all law enforcement" or "Defund the police" instead of simply reforming law enforcement in ways that make sense like getting rid of qualified immunity, making it illegal for an officer to serve in another county or state when terminated for misconduct.

      I could go on, but our problem in America is systemic. We could completely transform this country if we just put our disagreements on pause for 5-years and solely focused on those that we agree on.

    • sandworm101 2 hours ago
      Pro rich people crimes. They remain very much against poor people who break the law.
    • ck2 1 hour ago
      Trump Inc is a white-collar crime family which is why he pardons every white-collar crime they can find

      BTW you know those classified records he took to Mar-a-lago that almost put him in prison?

      They were all the records about his family businesses, it's documented, they were unique investigation records and he was trying to end all investigations

  • tracker1 1 hour ago
    This is just more than a little fucked up... I think we've "limited" liability way too much in terms of corporations... it's the investors that are meant to be protected, executives and board members are not meant to be immune. And I do think in the worst cases, the death penalty should be on the table.

    edit: to be clear, IMO, corporate power is an expression of govt power, which should be minimized.

  • eunos 2 hours ago
    > criminal case against Abbott Laboratories over contaminated baby formula

    In Communist China they would be shot

    • ourmandave 1 hour ago
      They also disappear you for selling books critical of the Party, so it's a two edged katana.

      Ex-HK bookseller Lam Wing-kee, detained by China in 2015, dies in Taiwan at 70

      https://www.npr.org/2026/07/03/g-s1-131904/ex-hk-bookseller-...

    • pavel_lishin 2 hours ago
      Hey, here in America, sometimes CEOs get shot as well.
      • Kapura 2 hours ago
        not by the state, however. important distinction.
        • morkalork 2 hours ago
          Now that justice by official channels is closed, one wonders if a grieving parent will seek it out by unofficial means
          • jyounker 24 minutes ago
            It will take a bit more in general. I don't think we're at the point of Blair Mountain yet, but if things don't change, then it's coming.
          • garyfirestorm 2 hours ago
            Parents could file a class action? RICO? How is this any different from organized crime?
      • red-iron-pine 1 hour ago
        rarely
      • JumpCrisscross 1 hour ago
        > here in America, sometimes CEOs get shot as well

        No, they don't. The UnitedHealth dude who got shot had a CEO title, but Thompson was ultimately a middle manager.

        The actual CEO of UnitedHealth Group–the one who signs off on its financial statements and fields quarterly calls–and the billionaire owners were fine. Which explains, in part, why nothing changed after the shooting.

        • AnthonyMouse 10 minutes ago
          You're implying that something would have changed if a different person was shot instead. Structural problems don't work like that. The individual players have the incentives created for them by the system. To change it you need to change the game, not the players.
  • mmooss 23 minutes ago
    Ironically, it's not just the ineffectuallity of the DOJ (intentional, in that case), it's the ineffectuality of the political competition, the Democratic Party, to hold the GOP accountable.

    The Dems inability to cash in on these things is so absurd that people just accept it: The Trump administration and GOP are letting a company get away with contaminating baby formula. That should be repeated by the Dems from now until the end of time. Everyone should associate Trump and the GOP with it.

    But as always, the Dems will not make Trump and the GOP pay any price, no matter how awful events are (and this one is hardly the worst), and so why would they stop doing these things?

    Part of the duty of the political competition is to hold the other party responsible. It is also very obvious and basic self-interest.