And a grandstanding, cowardly mutt at that.
When I heard that Andrew Cuomo (Yes, Mario’s boy), the Attorney General of New York, was â€œtaking legal actionâ€ against the recipients of the AIG bonuses, I wondered about the legal theory he was relying on to recoup those moneys. Certainly he could not commence a criminal proceeding against these people, for they have committed no crime. None. None at all. To the contrary, they held valid contracts, the payment of which was specifically authorized by the bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.
So, if they committed no crime, Cuomo would have to proceed against them in a civil action to recoup the money. But, what on what legal theory would he base his case? I suppose he could challenge the validity of the contracts themselves, but no one, thus far, has questioned their validity.
If any lawyers (or non-lawyers) out there would care to suggest why any civil action Cuomo might have brought would not be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, Iâ€™d love to hear it.
Iâ€™d also like to know why his suit would not be dismissed for lack of standing.
The truth is that all Cuomo had going for him had nothing to do with the law, but rather was all about instilling fear of exposure and resultant physical harm to these people and their families and instilling the fear of being crushed by naked government power. This is made abundantly clear by the letter of resignation written by an AIG employee who agreed to work for a dollar per year in anticipation of receiving payment of the â€œbonus.â€
Cuomo should be relegated to litigating rear-end hits.