A judge has granted requests from defendants in the BP oil disaster case to exclude various emails from trial. The details of the emails are an interesting read. For instance: At Halliburton's request, the court will not include an email from a BP geologist to a colleague in February 2010 which offered "thanks for the shitty cement job." (Reuters)

  • SCAQTony

    Quite simply this is the nothing short of the federal government ensuring that no US company is blamed or made to take responsibilities for this disaster despite proof to the contrary.

    • EH

      Or even more simply, that judges are getting more brazen about their corruption. Reflecting upon the judicial and prosecutorial attitude toward bankers and real estate people over the past three-plus years, they don’t have anything to worry about.

  • Josh Bisker

    I’m surprised that I still am capable of thinking this way, but my first thought was: “You’re joking. Please be joking.” But no. Nope.

    • http://www.batshite.com/royalflush Scott Bartlett

      I’m afraid I’ve all but lost that capacity. It takes an act of pretty staggering corruption/depravity to raise my eyebrows, nowadays.

      That party threw by the foreclosure law firm making fun of homeless people did it.

  • http://mordicai.livejournal.com Mordicai

    What steps are available for us as citizens to express our official displeasure with these events?  Anybody got a billion dollars to get noticed?

    • Manny

       Kickstarter?

  • Bubba73

    The optimist part of me says that the judge has more than enough evidence accrued to find against them without introducing elements that may give rise to appeal, and that this is why these particular gems were precluded. 

    On the other hand….money.

  • dioptase

    Unfortunately I have to agree with the judge on the “shitty job” email.  It lacks any details that would link what the author didn’t like to the failure.  Was it messy?  Slow?  Expensive?  Or is the author pissed about something else and deriding the cement job just to be insulting?  Without specific context, the email is inflammatory (no pun intended), not evidence.

    However it is reason to depose the dude.  All anyone has to do is ask the author “What did you think of the cementing job?” during a deposition.  Then you’d get the full gory details missing from the email.

    If it was still excluded, it’s because the geologist couldn’t offer any details supporting calling it shitty.

  • benher

    We wouldn’t want to hurt BPs feelings…

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/42THFKXIPMJHQBIH6OPI4RVIDY Thebes

    Behold the wonderful efficiency of Corporatacracy.

    (well, it is an efficient way for the elite to multiply their wealth, and that’s all that matters)