Not even vaguely true. The fossil fuel companies have known the truth for decades. Like with the tobacco companies, they have done their best to obfuscate the facts and push back any necessary decisions. Purely for monetary gain.
There is, simply put, no evidence to even suggest that. You tell me stuff all the time. Much of which is promptly discounted. If something turns out to be right, that doesn't mean I "knew" it. It means you told me and for whatever reason I didn't believe you. Or I disagreed. Or I didn't understand how you drew such a conclusion. Or whatever. It doesn't prove a damned thing.
Not very hard at all to prove criminal intent.
As usual, you have no idea WTF you're talking about.
"Criminal intent, mens rea, is an element of almost all crimes. Conspiracy, for instance, requires proof of an agreement and proof that the object of the agreement, the intent, was to commit a crime. In the civil context, likewise, specific intent or bad faith is a required element of many torts and statutory violations.
For example, to prove “induced” patent infringement, plaintiffs must show both that defendants knew of the patent and that they intended to cause another to infringe. Proving intent in either the civil or criminal context is inherently difficult. The attorney must attempt to prove (or disprove) what was going on in a person’s (or corporation’s) mind when performing an action or course of conduct. In a few cases, the person or entity admits its intention in a deposition, document, or discovery response. This is rare. But what about the much more difficult and common scenario of proving intent through circumstantial evidence.
Criminal prosecutors have the daunting task of proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt."
americanbar.org
Criminal intent of a "thought crime" is exceedingly difficult to prove. Which is why people are seldom convicted of tax fraud or financial crimes. Getting the proof is almost impossible. |
