Slashdot Mirror
White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd
malraid writes "The White House has issued a statement in which they refuse to comment on the petition to investigate Chris Dodd for bribery from the MPAA to pass legislation. The reason given: 'because it requests a specific law enforcement action.'"
Good to know that greed and corruption still rule. I was worried that we may be entering some weird, "by and for the people" period in American history.
Seriously though, what's it gonna take? How bad does it have to get before Joe Sixpack wakes up and takes notice? How much more before we finally have that revolution?
I've been fighting with my votes, my dollar, and by educating everyone who will listen. I'm ready to lock and load to get MY America back.
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
So lets go ask specific law enforcement agencies.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
and here I was thinking the executive branch enforces the law.... guess I'm not so sharp.
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
A group of people demands that a well known politician turned lobbyist get investigated for bribery. They know that they are all guilty of a little quid pro quo themselves so in order to save their own asses and job prospects after they leave office they don't investigate. This angers me though. I had high hopes for Obama forcing lobbyists to clean up their act, but he hasn't delivered. I was planning on voting for him simply because the Republican policies of ignoring science and cutting everything down to the bone disturb me, but now I think I'm going to vote third party.
Fuck Beta
But of course, they have referred the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency for enforcement?
I knew it.
Ahh the old "Terms of Service" gotcha. Can't do that here.
The worst part about this petition and the result, is that it will get basically zero media coverage. All of the mainstream news organizations are tied into SOPA and the lobbyists just as tightly as Dodd.
You can't petition to have someone arrested/investigated/incarcerated. Can you?
If there's a suspicion of illegality, the law enforcement agency is the place to go, not the president. pffft
That is an even cop-outtier cop-out than I expected.
Darn. If only there were a department we could go to in order to get justice. We could even fill it with lawyers who could prosecute people who broke the law. Put someone in charge of it who people couldn't mess with - like a government official or something.
F*%^*&^(@!!! LAWS!
We can petiition the White House to answer, on the record, any question as long as it is neither too specific NOR leads to a law enforcement action?
And the point of this 'service' is what, exactly? To provoke the administration to opine about non-specific social issues?
Ken
Declining to vote for Obama. Consistent with my desire to uphold integrity in our government in the highest regard, I decline to vote for any power that does not address PUBLIC ADMISSIONS OF BRIBERY without swift and tangible action. I will decline to vote for Obama on this issue alone.
Alex Trebek: Who's more hypocritical and repulsive than a GOP beholden to corporate interests? ....
This is why I am refusing this year to vote on a national level. I will vote for Mayor, State Rep, City Councilman, but I will not vote for Congressional Rep, Senate or President this year. I am absolutely tired of this.
You can put up a form in 10 minutes but no one said that data will go anywhere lest anything useful will be made out of it.
In absence of a 'specific law enforcement action', could we at least settle for a CIA drone strike, or extraordinary rendition(how often can you do this before it becomes ordinary rendition?) to a shadowy torture dungeon? Either option should spare the department of justice the painful and tedious necessity of getting involved...
It assumes that a campaign contribution can be equated with bribery. If that were true, easily 90 percent of all Congressmen and state representatives could be indicted, especially by someone bothering to associate donations with subsequent votes on matters of interest to the lobbyists.
Bribery means money that goes into someone's personal bank account, or the equivalent in terms of all-expenses-paid vacations, etc.
The anti-MPAA/RIAA crowd is grasping at straws here. Way past tedious.
From http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector. Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.
I hope this settles it - any questions?
Nobody will be prosecuted....too many people already say "If so so doesn't vote my way Im not gonna contribute to his campaign." OR "If you support my bill I will contribute to your campaign" the promises are vague and non-specific.
"...if the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act. In such situations the official asserts that his official conduct will be controlled by the terms of the promise or undertaking." McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991)
On the other hand if Dodd had said "If you support SOPA I will give your campaign $50,000" that would be quid pro quo. A threat to withhold support is not bribery. There has to be an explicit offer or threat. Campaign contributions have a higher standard of proof for bribery allegations than say a private payment.
The Executive branch, Obama, runs the DOJ and Holder enforces/investigates what Obama tells him to. That is until the executive branch itself is shown to be corrupt and Congress is forced to investigate them, such as the Mexican gun running.
This reminds me of Clinton selling missle secrets to China for DNC campaign contributions. When called out on it during a presidential debate Gore said "There is no controlling legal authority" meaning that Janet Reno was told by Clinton to not investigate illegal foreign campaign contributions and she would investigate anyone else who looked into it.
Why don't we people do for this as same as we did for stopping SOPA? We massively engaged in a campaign to stop that bill. Why can't we do the same to see this man behind bars. Maybe it's time to give an example here. This would set a precedent, maybe this would start a revolution in participation. We need some more direct democracy and I think we finally have the tools to do it.
Is there a new Petition for comment on Chris Dodd that is within the TOS?
I looked but searching for "Chris" doesn't even turn up the original petition.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
I made a petition on the site (to end the corn subsidy) but it takes upwards of 20 seconds to load, which is completely ridiculous. Most people assume it's a dead link.
Of course, this makes it harder to reach the 25,000 necessary in 30 days in order to get a response.... Any thoughts on why it is sooooo slow?
So President disappointment, says "I refuse to investigate a crook, because I'm the president and I have no legal power?"
What the fuck is the president for?
that Obama and his Department of (In)Justice are more in the pockets of Dodd and his Hollywood masters than the most venal member of Congress, let those doubts disappear now. We can expect no more from a gutless president and a DOJ staffed from the RIAA and MPAA's "let's sue children for a living" legal teams.
Obama is the President. Obama HAS been the President for several years.
That's how it works.
Blame Bush all you want for taxes or the economy or high gas prices or even pimples on your ass if it makes you feel better.
Obama is the current President and his administration is in charge. He should be held accountable for NOT holding people account for things that happen on his watch.
While the Executive branch's job is to enforce the laws, it gets a little muddy when it comes to the other branches. Technically, it is Congress' job to police the membership of all the branches (only Congress has the power to impeach members, and it may impeach the members of any branch).
So here's to waiting for Congress to do something about it :)
The power to investigate is the power to DESTROY. Let that sink in.
We don't want a society where the loudest bunch of shrieking zealots can pressure a criminal investigation by the mere weight of numbers. We've elected Obama and he's nominated holder and we've told him there's a big problem. We need to trust them to do the right thing.
You might not like the idea of trusting them, but there isn't a better alternative.
What is the reasoning behind his claim that you ignore petitions if they request justice? Isn't Obama ultimately in charge of the Department of Justice?
Same thing they're all there: fuck us and get happy.
Have you heard about SoylentNews?
the bloodshed you endorse is far, far worse
little boys like you who have never known real revolution are historically illiterate fools. we will not have a revolution in this country until we are pushed much, much further. and that is a good thing
you don't have the slightest fucking clue of the misery of what a real revolution really is like. i hate the very concept of intellectual property and i hate the plutocracy infecting the country i love. but i am no friend of yours, and the likes of you disgust me far more than chris dodd ever will. at least chris dodd won't lock and load and embrace borderline schizophrenic hollywood addled visions of "glorious" revolutionary bloodshed
fuck you, you gunhappy tool. if we are ever to actually have real fascism in this country, people who think like you, all to ready and happy to grab a gun, will be at the vanguard of this country's collapse into it, guided by demagogues who know all too well how to pull the strings in your ignorant bloodlust drunk mind
revolution means failure you asshole. you are supposed to fix the system, not start shooting people you
have i made my disgust of your ignorant bloodlust clear? then grow the fuck up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is the job the Executive Branch exists for: to enforce the laws. If nothing else, the response should have been, "We are looking into this." Talk about making people lose any shred of faith in their elected officials.
Let's start a petition to investigate Wikileaks and Megaupload and see if we get the same response.
But I'm gonna kick back and fire up a fatty
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Thank you for signing this petition. We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on Whitehouse.gov. However, consistent with the We the People Terms of Participation and our responses to similar petitions in the past, the White House declines to comment on this petition because it requests a specific law enforcement action.
Rephrase the question and resubmit. "How would you phrase the question in order to answer it in a way we would like?" Then a week later, ask that question. It appears there is enough support to get 25000 people to sign up for both of those questions.
Ok guys, enough with the war mongering and all that, sure its all corrupt and hopefully we will have a bloodless civil war but I would be happier if the folks with their fingers on the buttons would take notice; after all they are all for sale one way or another :)
A petition pointing out the error in refusing to comment on the last Dodd petition:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/change-its-position-re-chris-doddriaampaa-executing-specific-law-enforcement-actions-its/KYwdcQb2
shorty:
http://wh.gov/kD6
They painted themselves in the corner; the irony is that the whole mess this started with was a private company (may as well be a citizen) requested a "specific law enforcement action" so while ignoring this petition would be very sad for all of us, there is that glimmer left that they could be forced to care?
...it prevents violent revolution, because by the time enough people are agitated enough to actually violently revolt against the government, they would have just voted the government out already.
paintball
Can't let Barry stop the gravy train for himself, either.
It is now past time to create a petition to end this silly petition business.
If (as the white house said) they cant comment because it would require specific law enforcement agency action petition the relevant law enforcement agency (whoever that might be) to carry out whatever action is required to investigate Dodd.
Obama never wants to prosecute anything past (oh, say: war crimes, torture, murder) because it's, like, so "yesterday." Let's just get all hopey and come together for a brighter future instead of being gloomy old negative gusses. I"m sure Mr. Happy President wants us all to sing "Kumbaya" and see happy faces all around, OK? OK?
The reason given: 'because it requests a specific law enforcement action.'"
I know this is probably wrong but in grade school I was always told one of the Executive Branch's jobs is to enforce laws?
yes, and even with the plutocratic infection we are still far from revolution
but we WILL get to revolution eventually if we do not clear the money infection that is turning "we the people" into "we the rich people and corporations"
we need to cure our government
the morons ready to reach for guns already are just pathetic useless fools
the same sort of ignorant tool who were happy and excited to suit up and get into world war i and the american civil war, and died very quickly with a surprised expression on their face
that's the sort of fucking useless cannon fodderwho are happy to talk about real armed revolution, because of... the RIAA?!
jesus christ what useless stupid people there are in this world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I am disappointed myself that Ron Paul got a mere 7 percent of the Florida caucus vote....
Romney got 47 percent of the vote. Newt got 31 percent of the vote. Santorum got 13 percent.
It is estimated that for Florida spending:
Romney ~$15 million
Newt ~$3 million
So money is not everything, and Ron Paul does not have the other things.
The man has no qualms about fighting a war elsewhere, but keeps rolling over for domestic policy.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Isn't that one of the roles of the Executive Branch? I call BS..
So what happened to all the hippies from the 60s who were going to get into govt and legalize pot? Oh right they got paid instead.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
there will be no civil war. A modern military can put down it's populace in no time. You don't have the weapons, tactics or manpower to take on a police force, let alone the US army. Plus our ruling class own the media. Look how far Occupy Wall Street got...
/.ers, get the jokes out of your system, I'll be here when you're done giggling). Seriously. So long as there's more people than we need to keep the rich living like kings they'll be able to take advantage of us. You want kids? Have 1, then stop. Or go full Darwin award and have none. The ruling class of Japan is freaking the fuck out because they can't get their people to have kids. So is a good chunk of Europe. Stop giving them fodder for their factories and machines. Stop convincing yourself that your fsckin' crotchfruit is so amazing they'll rise above the misery you left in your wake. Stop reproducing, and watch our rulers turn impotent (pun not intended).
You want to do something that works? Don't have children (Ok,
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Don't worry.. give it a week.. we will be back to talking about IMPORTANT things such as if iphone is better than Samsung Galaxy.
I think it's about time for Obama to take the black-face makeup off and reveal himself for who he actually is: Just another old white man, towing the Republican party line.
Why not create a new petition to change the We The People Terms of Participation to allow comment on petitions that request a specific law enforcement action?
To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition.
The astonishing level of legal savvy in the geek community is well, astonishing.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Hmm, imagine that, an establishment democrat covering for another corrupt establishment democrat.
The correct request for a petition would be to impeach Dodd for high crimes and misdemeanors.
The impeachment process may be triggered by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of what actions constitute grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, a state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition.
.
hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#The_federal_impeachment_procedure
A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanours
Despite that he left office on 3 Jan 2011 and went on to head the MPAA in March 2011, and therefore was not in office, there is precedent for impeaching a government official after leaving office. That precedent is the 1876 case of General William Belknap, who was impeached by a unanimous vote of the House of Representatives shortly after he had resigned for allegedly having received money in return for post tradership appointments (bribery).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap
Other precedents also exist. Feel free to consult a real lawyer before submitting the next petition so that a stronger case can be made and actually trigger action.
-- Terry
America wont survive a revolution. The moment people start thinking like this is the moment people who ARE corrupt and are in seats of power at the moment can claim even more power on the grounds of insurgants, terrorists, and rebels are trying to corrupt our pure country. They'll ride their white horse and smear any sort of truth that can be mustered to bring people to the cause and then with their new claimed power they will strike back with the full force of military aid at their disposal and they have a lot of that currently.
People armed with guns can't retake our country. This is a long cry from the civil war where all you had to do was pick up a musket and you'd be on relatively equal terms with the foe you're facing. They have military and strategic dominance on every level, not to mention they can do all sorts of underhanded things to make everyone involved disappear. I do believe such soldiers may turn sides, but it's highly unlikely. They country in and of itself has become too powerful to take back by a common citizen with a rifle. Such a imbalance of power would lead to an extremely bloody conflict with the people without it getting slaughtered in droves attempting to take it back from people with it. The american zeitgeist isn't ready for such a conflict either. We have too many differing opinions to split things down the middle and we easily get bored of things when it doesn't involve everyone dying around us.
This is completely putting aside how it will turn the country upside down and leaves us open to people who would never dream of trying to take america going and doing it. You shouldn't think in such short sighted terms. Picking up a weapon and starting to shoot people without any forethought is a bad decision.
You have to change things from the inside, bit by bit, piece by piece. Witch hunts need to be performed and we need something similar to the inquisition that will willingly investigate every part of the system (not the people) and burn the heretics retroactively. It needs to be done peacefully so when the side that gets power hungry and decides to use an iron fist they can be branded as such. So there is a right and wrong, so that the people can understand that one side is fighting for something better then power...
When and IF this happens it will start to signify a new golden age for America, one that is founded on the future rather then making more money then the other person. We need to help each other rather then trying to drive each other in the dirt. Just because the country was founded with capitalism in mind, doesn't mean we need to stay that way. We are much better then that. It's the direction most first world countries are taking and it's the right one.
We need someone to set himself on fire in front of the white house.
Tightens Around the Pencil Neck of President Barak Obama.
That makes sense, since law enforcement isn't part of the executive branch. They just make laws by executive decree, give away tax payer money to corrupt foreign governments (including Red China) and to political contributors who are going bankrupt, and stuff like that. Far be it from them to be involved in enforcing our laws. If they start doing that them some crackpot is going to suggest that the laws apply to them too.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
... all of the things Obama has personally done to screw up integrity in our government such as... keeping the Federal Reserve rather than abolishing it, ...
You sound like a Ron Paul nut. That would just move the power/responsibility elsewhere in the Federal bureaucracy. What's needed is to make the Fed more open and accountable. Besides, the president alone couldn't abolish it. It would take a major push through Congress - probably harder than the healthcare bill.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
The only investigation mentioned on the News is the investigation of Megaupload.
They might be using that as a premise to hide the bribery and impede an investigation there.
He can be impeached after the fact. This is the same legal argument that certain groups have been trying to apply to Bush and Cheney.
-- Terry
I was torn between modding all the n00bs down and posting, but this tears it.
Look, the white house isn't the justice department. Obama could ask them to look at this, but they don't have to listen to him. He could threaten to can the lot of them, but they still could say no. (In fact, I think something similar happened during Nixon's presidency.)
Supposing that either Obama asked them to look into this, and they decided to do so, it would be early into an investigation into political corruption, which will take a VERY long time to run. They will be extra careful to make sure that any charges they throw at Dodd will stick. On top of all that, I don't know that its a common practice to publicly announce that you are starting an investigation into political corruption.
What are you really expecting, them to haul Dodd out and lynch him before lunch, just because some people signed a petition?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Sign here:
http://wh.gov/kWb
Maybe we should humbly ask our rulers for a "blue ribbon" commission. That way there is no law enforcement taking place. We should request the same for the banksters on wall street. That way we can publicly chastise them but no substantive reform will ever have to take place! Convenient.
Judges judge, they don't investigate and they don't prosecute. That is most definitely a function of the Executive branch. The justice department should be looking into this, they should be reporting to the President, and he should be asking why they are not doing anything about it. You need to get a much better understanding. Perhaps you are confused because judge and justice department both begin with a "J", but the judicial branch doesn't and can't investigate or prosecute. In the case of Federal Law issues that falls to the Justice department in the Executive branch, under the President.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It's not the White House's charter to specifically direct the legal system as a rule.
Why don't they just say that, and point out that there has been enough press coverage on the petition that it'd be impossible to believe that the appropriate legal entities aren't aware of the situation, and the expectation is that those legal entities will act in a manner appropriate to their charter and jurisdiction.
Am I the only one that finds the White House petitions a bit.. sterile? My impression is that the answers are used either to promote the view of the current administration or to talk the petitioners down, but there is no commitment whatsoever from the White House to seriously address a concern of thousands of citizens. So basically, you can keep petition until you die of old age, without guarantee of any real change.
Since it's the witchunters who determine who the witches are I will mostly be one of those labeled. Why? Because I have a firm belief that the founders chose the order of the words "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for a very good reason. You can't have liberty if you are not alive, and you can't pursure happiness if you aren't free to do so. Logically then the number one focus of government must be to ensure that everyone all that is necessary to live. The prevelant view in the US today is more "I've gots to get mine and screw you if you didn't get yours!"
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Yes because someone taking their *legally acquired* money and using *legal* constructs in the tax code to pay less taxes is exactly like a politician passing legislation that favors one particular company, and then getting a senior position at said company when they retire.
Exactly. The. Same.
Chris Dodd is hardly the only politician who has done such a thing, and there is currently no law against it unless there is an actual promised payment (even Delay/Gingrich have been smart enough to avoid that). Some might argue that there should be laws against such 'retirement plans' for politicians, but it would be hard to enforce, and likely unconstitutional. There are however laws against money laundering and using foreign bank accounts for tax evasion, perhaps Mitt has been completely honest, perhaps not. As 'we' all know, online polls are easy to game, it wouldn't be hard to ask them to investigate using a couple of thousand email addresses.
Whenever the GOP is in power they seem to spend more time grandstanding for political advantage than doing the work of the people (for example, 'where's that jobs bill?').
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
I waited 20 years. Then I waited another 20. And it's still the same ol' ^%@#@. I've been waiting for the old guard to pass away my whole life. The old white bigoted, sexist, racist dudes. You know the ones. You've seen them on TV recently "debating". Well, it's been years, and some of them are gone, but it seems there's an endless supply. And some of them aren't even old, white, or male. Despite the consciousness raising of the mid-to-late 20th century. Despite the promise of democratized education through technology - remember the utopian dreamers who thought the radio/television/internet would educate the world, instead of becoming a palliative pablum? We still have would-be rulers who are "tired of being criticized for not being sensitive to other religions of the world". The mayor of Oakland this week entreating Occupiers not to use violent means, after authorizing riot police to escalate protest into riot so as to be able to justify point blank non-lethal response (flashbang, beanbag shotgun, jumbo pepper spray, teargas to the head). The hypocrisy is stunning. In the ecosystem of governance and politics there is always a niche for such folks, and a surfeit of up and comers eager to fill it.
All those fancy Hollywood dinners weren't for free after all!
When you see evidence of a crime, you don't file a petition, you file charges and subpoena them.
"Also, Dodd is our buddy. So fuck you!"
Naaa - not interested, they just wanna polish the stiff, shiny barrels of their pistols
during the election cycle. so its bullshit.
Why not Gandhi
Gandhi was more or less an anarchist: one who doesn't believe in a special "right" to employ coercion (which is the first prerequisite of government), much like an anarchist doesn't believe in supernatural power. With that said, Gandhi has more in common with Ayn Rand than any political figure you can name.
I had a lengthy reply, partly agreeing and partly disagreeing (revolution is hyperbolic bs) with you. But I can say it much more concisely: If you truly believe that this reaction is about the RIAA then you are really missing the point.
To quote Greg Proops vis-a-vis China becoming the dominant world power: 'Oh, you're going to miss US when we're gone.'
1 in 3 American children now lives in poverty. Our government holds prisoners indefinitely without trial and tortures them. It has given entire industries get out of jail free cards after they broke the law (telecoms w/ spying, in case you weren't paying attention). Now it's turning a blind eye to a public admission of bribery from the spokesperson for another entire industry. It's also violating our constitutional rights on a daily basis with complete impugnity.
By what measure does this not equal "bad enough?" Oh, no, wait, I get it. YOU have enough to satisfy your material needs. YOU have a job. YOU have not lost YOUR house. None of YOUR family has suffered. Yet. So all this must be in everyone else's imaginations. Everyone else must be simply melodramatic.
In case you haven't been paying attention, people have been voting. The entire government has entirely changed hands twice in the last 10 years. And you know what? NOTHING has changed. So please tell me another fairy tale about how, gosh, all we need to do is get off our butts and vote.
Wake up, or shut up. The rest of us want our country back.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I suggest starting the "right" one then. You push it to slashdot & reddit, that might be enough to get the ball rolling.
Did no one read what Dodd actually said? It's unconscionable, but you'd be laughed out of any court or US Attorneys office claiming it was illegal. Companies and associations can donate to campaigns, and they can threaten to remove that support at any time. Currently the law is (put simply) that corruption is when a lobbyist gives bribes on the side, or a lobbyist takes a government official on a free vacation or other similar, you know, bribes. Campaign donations are not considered bribes (legally speaking).
The problem is the SCOTUS decision that money=speech. Nothing illegal went on here. Trying to goad Obama into making up law on his own is a political stunt and nothing more. This isnt an avenue for removing money from the lawmaking process. This needs to be fought at SCOTUS again.
Dodd's a little turd, but the slashdot groupthink interpretation of this is mind bogglingly naive.
"The White House has issued a statement in which they refuse to comment on the petition to investigate Chris Dodd for bribery from the MPAA to pass legislation. The reason given: 'because it requests a specific law enforcement action."
Isn't the president the EXECUTIVE branch?
From Whitehouse.gov: "...The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress..."
Yes, we're requesting a law enforcement action. That's (essentially) the Executive's job. You know...the Justice Dept, the FBI, ATF, all those guys?
-Styopa
I'm sure that the White House will do the obvious and refer this to the Department of Justice.
So when does the law enforcement action start?
Yes, the responses, when there are responses to whitehouse.gov petitions are usually pretty bad. No, as far as I know no specific policy has been the result of a whitehouse.gov petition. People are frustrated and there is even a petition to take the petitions more seriously.
So what?
The cutoff point for a response to a petition is 25,000 signatures. The Chris Dodd petition was somewhere around 35,000 the last I checked. Would you really want Obama to take decisive actions based on the will of 25-35,000 people? We (the US) are a nation of over 300 million individuals! How much say should a mere 10s of thousands have?
However... 30 some thousand people bothered to sign it. Many probably had to go through the trouble to create accounts showing they cared more than just enough to click a link. Do you think this goes entirely unnoticed among the politicians? Please don't get me wrong, they are not going to suddenly become good. They are still getting all sorts of money and perks legal and otherwise from special interests including the movie and record industries. They can probably count on buying far more than 30,000 votes just by name recognition from the ads they can buy with lobbyist money. They aren't going to just throw that away. But they do know they can't be so bold about it. Elections are never more than 4 years away which means they will be considering both voters and campaign money. If we give up then the only voice they hear is the ones giving them the campaign money.
The world is not going to change because of our little petitions but they will make some small difference. Even if it is only a little subconscious influence on politicians minds as they make decisions in the future that is something.
So artor3, what have you been doing? Do you practice what you preach?
Are you involved in activism? If not, are you supporting an existing candidate and think the system is good enough that you can just sit there preaching to others on the Internet about activism, in a do as I say, not as I do kind of way?
The people who don't like the White House answer should sign a petition or something...
The definition of hostile you are using is simply, "doesn't like us". That's not the usage I was making. In this case, hostile means "actively engaging in violent attacks against US forces, civilians, and/or property."
If Iran decided to attack a U.S. ship in international waters, then I'd say the President has both the authority and duty to order the military to take appropriate responses.
Because Chris Dodd accepting outright bribes is exactly the same as someone earning money through a job. Seriously, do you ever read your own tripe?
I wanted to try searching for other petitions that have been similarly denied comment, but I couldn't because whitehouse.gov/robots.txt disallows all petition and response pages. Seems that the petition pages are the only ones they disallow. Also, the petition search on the site doesn't return 86ed petitions.
It has often been the case throughout history that a certain form of corruption goes widely unpunished, and then the people finally get fed up enough and demand action, and one cockroach of the thousands is crushed by the legal system to make the point, and then the rest scatter to the winds and stop being so corrupt on this one issue (or get taken down in smaller and less-famous trials).
There's no particular reason why Chris Dodd can't be the first to go. The fact that there are so many others doesn't justify him, and the time has come for a poster-case against the ridiculous Washington special-interests machine. Corporations (and Lobbys on their behalf) are *buying the law and the government*, in cash, routinely. It has to stop.
no you moron.
If the Obama administration comments on such a law enforcement act in this manner before anything is charged, it would derail the whole process before it starts.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Of course they can't comment, even if they were going to nail him to a cross, they would remain silent on the matter.
The real question is did Dodd (and other current and past legislators) get the message or do we need to ring the bell again...
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Impeachment is not available as a remedy against Article 1 elected officials. Impeachment is a power granted to Article 1 as a tool to be used against Article 2 and Article 3.
See Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 and Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7.
Article 1 gives both houses of Congress the power to police and sanction their own members, but good luck getting them to use it.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
Prosecute one guy for what? Which law has he broken? He threatened not to make campaign donations, and presumably on behalf of part of the MAFIAA. Is not contributing to a campaign illegal? Is it illegal to ask your representatives to do what you voted them in office to do?
Even if you ignore Citizens United, this was blatant idiocy at best, and at worst a childish tantrum.
So what do we prosecute him for exactly? And yes, I signed the petition. My reasons are obviously not the same as most peoples'.
People actually thought that the executive branch would direct the "Justice" department to investigate Chris Dodd? We are talking about the same "Justice" department that is run by the following five RIAA lawyers:
Ian Gershengorn
Donald Verrilli
Tom Perrilli
Brian Hauck
Ginger Anders
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/
That is like appointing the fox to investigate the case of the dead chickens in the hen house.
What is an example of, "because it requests a specific law enforcement action." My understanding is; Government Employee "A" accepts Something from Agent "B" Representing Client "C". At this point, my understanding is that Government Employee "A" has been bribed. Prison should be consequence for Government Employee "A", Client "B", and Agent "C".
Why not Gingrich, as it's hard to imagine that Fannie Mae really need to pay $1.6 million for a historian contractor. Maybe you can create a petition for that and then complain when they refuse that one too.
As much as your point is taken, your ad hominem pretty much unveils you to be as deluded as these "gun nuts". While I'm sure you want to put a very fine point o n the horrors of war/revolution, consider also that some people are simply expressing that they feel completely hopeless, and that all they see before them is bloodshed to affect change.
If you sympathize that way, if you provide a real example of hope (none of which I personally see right now, honestly), then perhaps you'd win more minds to your side. Your point is taken, though: War is terrifying, but the sad fact is that one wonders whether, given how apathetic so many seem to be, if bloodshed isn't the only thing that will wake enough people up to cause any real change. Even then, that change may make things even worse than they are now.
-
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote
That's not liberty; that's self-defense. (Cue the un-thinking hoards tripping over themselves to crucify me.) Common sense tells me that in honest liberty, no wolf OR sheep holds any such "right" to vote coercion on others. After all, liberty implies the absence of coercion, not the presence of it. (Oppression requires the presence of coercion.)
The problem you have is simple - the press as-is, is loathe to report on Democratic corruption.
If the president were a Republican, this "no comment" on investigation of this very OBVIOUS corruption would be at the top of every headline.
If you want our Democracy to work, the key is that the people have to have visibility as to problems. That will not happen with Democrats in charge, it's is simple as that.
So if you REALLY want Joe Sixpack to notice, don't vote Democrat. If you want even more mischief swept under the rug, by all means vote back in the current scoundrels.
Note please I'm not saying Republicans or Libertarians are any less corrupt; it's simply that they cannot hide it with anywhere near the same level of (sl)ease.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Seriously? Three incorrect homophones in a row? Please tell me that was a joke.
The investigation petition did not specify when the bribes may have taken place.
I suspect, as do many others, that his position with the MPAA after leaving office may have had some connection to his voting record on legislation impacting the MPAA before he left office, and that campaign contributions, and perhaps the promise of such a position, may have played a role in such decisions.
So the investigation was, in the collective opinion of those who signed the petition, warranted to determine whether or no those suspicions were backed by evidence, or merely suspicions.
Let's be very clear: anyone against SOPA or PIPA is an idiot if they fail to dislike the man. Whether or not there's something that can be legally done about that dislike, or to send a message to other SOPA/PIPA supporters, or supporters of similar future attempts at legislation remains to be seen.
-- Terry
Even if we accept your argument, despite case and federal law, which makes it a strict Constitutional Constructivist argument, that doesn't change things.
The petition is a public petition, and all you are arguing at that point is that it should be presented to the House, rather than presenting it to the Executive, when it fact it was presented publicly, which means that it already meets your additional criteria.
My point is, bribery is impeachable, and impeachment is the correct legal road forward for dealing with bribery. The point is to get someone to act on the correct legal road forward without being able to dodge the issue again.
The Obama administration neatly sidestepped the intent of the petition on a legal technicality based on form. You're now trying to do the same thing based on presentation. Both approaches are disingenuous dodges with regards to elected officials being responsible for carrying out the will of the people.
-- Terry
Joe Sixpack stays happy so long as his overall taxes don't increase, his local traffic stays managable, and overall expenses don't increase.
The "average American" usually votes the party line and doesn't remember that his representative voted for Bill 1 and didn't vote for Bill 2.
Once you understand this, it's easy to understand why politicians stay in business (yes, I said it!) for so long.
Rarely does a politician, once entrenched in office, stick his or her neck out. But when it does happen, it should not only be noted, but applauded.
The most recent example is Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. She could have stayed in Congress. In fact, if she ran again, she would probably run unopposed. But the fact that she saw herself and said, "The people of my district deserve the best and that is not me" showed that she needed to step down. (Full disclosure, I'm a registered Republican and don't agree with many of her positions. But I can say that what she did took courage and a bit sadden that her district is losing someone who actually thought of them first.)
The problem is Joe Sixpack who continually vote these jokers back into office. Until we can get them to care more about their vote, we won't see radical change anytime soon.
We don't live in Shouldland.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Chris Dodd is a democrat. Or the fact that the RIAA and MPAA gave millions to Obama. Or the large number of MPAA and RIAA stooges in the Obama administration.
Though it's good to know that the White House doesn't have to follow through with what they agreed to do, as long as they can come up with a half-assed reason.
You speak purely for yourself, and not for anyone but yourself. And now it's my turn to speak purely for myself.
You didn't fight for me. You didn't sacrifice anything for me. Your friend in the wheelchair didn't sacrifice anything for me. Only I decide whether I benefit from what the US government (or anybody) does. Same as how only the Iraqis decide whether they benefit from what the US government does. You cannot fabricate a beneficiary out of demand or threat. A beneficiary is defined from the bottom up, not the top down.
In conclusion, I am NOT your beneficiary, and don't you dare try to make me into one.
The articles I saw about the petition said that the petition was in response to his calling on Congressmen and Senators who received campaign contributions from the MPAA to vote according to the MPAA's wishes (which was phrased in a way that suggests that the campaign donations were very much quid pro quo).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for Ron Paul!
Vote for RON PAUL!
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for Ron Paul!
VOTE for RON PAUL!
Whenever the GOP is in power they seem to spend more time grandstanding for political advantage than doing the work of the people
...he says in response to a news story about a Democratic in power refusing to do the work of the people.
Can we get past the idea that either major US party cares more about the citizenry than the other?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote! for Dr. Paul!
Vote for RON PAUL!
vote for Ron Paul
Vote for Ron Paul!
Vote for RON PAUL!!
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote! for Doctor Paul!
vote for RON PAUL!
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote!! for Congressman Paul!
Vote for RON PAUL!!!
(Hey, it's really quite apt in this thread.)
I'll one up that. The US Did put down a protest. They crushed OWS using provisions of the Patriot Act. The rest of the world ran a few news stories and then got on with their lives.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Robots are coming on fast in the military. Ethical robotics in in it's infancy while full autonomy for mass killing looms large. The argument that the military won't shoot it's own citizens is dying fast. See "Wired for war" for stats.
Gotta love how the reason they gave was that it would require action. Typical government.
But they've also failed to realize that nobody is calling for a specific outcome (indictment, conviction, etc). It's just a call for investigation. Of course, they won't do that because they're probably being bribed not to.
I always thought this country was one based on due process .gov problem
This is clearly a law enforcement issue not a Executive branch of the
the accusations have been made now sit back and watch
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
So it's election year and many deranged attempts are made to bring discredit to one and all. I note that its a request. Odd how these things get
fabricated on the spot to distract from serious issues facing ALL of us.
Representatives in Congress and the House were needed 200 years ago, they were the voice of the people. Now they have put themselves above the law, royalty if you will, allowed to do anything without any real consequence. With the technology we have today, we don't need representatives, let the people vote on the laws and get rid of the dead weight in Washington...
My Goodness, would you expect them to investigate the hand that feeds them?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada