DH makes a decent point …
As Liddy surely knows, when a company wants to get out of a contract that is questionable or troubling, it can generally find some legal theory to justify disavowing the contract. Here, given what has happened at AIG, it would be shocking if there were not a plausible argument that the AIGFP ******* breached whatever contracts allegedly entitle them to bonuses. Assume that AIG refuses the bonuses, and the ****bags sue to collect them. AIG gets a jury trial. What jury in the USA would award bonuses? It’s damn near inconceivable. Liddy is paying the bonuses because he wants to pay them and could give a **** about honor, decency, taxpayers, responsibility, whatever.
I was going to write this up tonight; hopefully I’ll be able to tomorrow. But the real issue for these people at AIGFP is criminal jeopardy. As noted earlier, a lot of the stuff these folks were doing looks like fraud. It would be helpful to make that clear. It might lead to more constructive decisions on stuff like these bonuses.
