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?
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.
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
But that's just the thing, you're being intimidated into NOT voting.
THIS is what is exploited to get certain people into power, scaring people and making it so they don't actually vote, scaring them into not voting so that corporate interests and greed can take over.
It's people like you that have effectively sat back and let the MAFIAA take over our nation.
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.
Honestly, this is the weakest argument not to vote for Obama. Out of all of the things that he's done, you pick something most likely written by a mid-level bureaucrat instead of all of the things Obama has personally done to screw up integrity in our government such as not closing Guantanamo bay, starting another war, keeping the Federal Reserve rather than abolishing it, ordering the killing of a US citizen, etc.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
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.
"You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better."
Why do you think Barack Obama passed health care reform even though he knew it would cost him the House of Representatives?
Barack Obama passed health reform after the last 7 Presidents failed to pass universal coverage.
He earned a second term with that, but it may cost him his second term.
Barack Obama is not perfect (as described here) but he has earned my vote.
And to the petitioners, try rephrasing the accusation as, "Please comment on Chris Dodd's controversial new career peddling influence."
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
Ralph Nader, or another Independent runner. Because with the two-party system "the only way to win is not to play".
Or at least at present that's the best suggestion I've got.
...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
Way to miss the mark.
Elected potiticians should be making decisions on the behalf of their electorate, which is made up of mostly citizens, and a few local businesses/corporations. Unfortunately, corporations have a disproportionate ability to be able to provide campaign funds versus regular citizens.
Corruption in general is making decisions for personal gain instead of the reason you were employed. When corporations provide funds to polititcians (in return for policy decisions), they can use this to run bigger/lavish campaings, hopefully pull move votes and keep themselves a cushy high paying job, meanwhile ignoring the majority of their electorate.
Also dont play down the inventive lengths that people will go to rort the system. It doesnt have to be paid into their bank acount directly for them to gain value from it.
The whole thing stinks, and it is a very blurred between "contributions" and "quid pro quo". Private contributions should be scrapped entirely to avoid the temptation.
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?
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
"You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better."
Why do you think Barack Obama passed health care reform even though he knew it would cost him the House of Representatives?
Barack Obama passed health reform after the last 7 Presidents failed to pass universal coverage.
He earned a second term with that, but it may cost him his second term.
You are clearly drinking the Kool-Aid. Barack Obama didn't pass anything. Congress passed the so-called "health-care reform" issue (in reality, a thinly veiled insurance company bailout through mandating everyone purchase coverage). They did this by hammering it down everyone's throat with the same despicable fear tactics the opposition used to oppose it. Your star-child Obama was nothing more than a partisan shill for this whole fiasco.
They should be indicted - every last one of them.
Being a elected official in the US is extremely lucrative with lots of 'gifts' and 'free' vacations from friends and supporters after they have finished serving their terms, highly paid jobs within industries they 'regulated', highly paid jobs with companies that got legislated overpriced no-bid contracts, highly paid lobbying jobs that take advantage of their access, and a rate of return on investments 60% higher than market average (and about 20% higher than average RoR with insider trading). Simply because the payoff is delayed doesn't mean that it isn't happening and because it is so well known about nobody ever has to actually make an agreement for the bribery because the politician takes the lead knowing that if they behave in a particular way that they are guaranteed a lucrative result.
One of the reasons that other countries look at the US with horror is how blatant and openly corrupt your government officials are. In Canada the governing party for over 40 years fell and was replaced over a scandal directing work to a company that supported the Liberal party. The total amount was under $2 million dollars over 8 years which is less than every single representative and senator directs to supporters each and every budget. Even the most ethical politician on the national stage is wildly corrupted and should be charged and imprisoned.
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/
Have you forgotten all the fear-mongering that surrounded the proposal of imprisoning these people in the US? It was like a bad flashback to the Bush administration. When you could automatically win any argument by fear-mongering about terrorism. (A theory soundly proven by Bush's re-election in 2004).
Do I hold Obama blameless? No. He should have fought longer & harder to keep his promise. But just writing this gave me a flashback to the whole Bush administration, it was like a fresh nightmare every day, idiots wielding fear like a club against reason, every damn day. You're welcome to your opinion, but IMHO it's a lot less bad now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Some of your arguments are absolutely true and valid. Intentional sustained inflation is theft. It is a tax that goes, not to the government, but to the financial sector (granted, some of it offsets the national debt).
The reason the Continental Currency failed so badly was severalfold. (1) Congress at the time was even worse at managing monetary policy than the Fed is now. (hardly an argument for or against the Fed) They were basically being treated as a bond redeemable when paying taxes. Bonds during wartime tend to fall bellow face value, as risk of non-payment rises. (2) The colonies were already flooded by foreign currency. You didn't need to gamble about whether the British or the colonist would win. You just traded in Spanish coin. Besides, the British empire wasn't going to go away. The British pound sterling was still going to have value. (3) British counterfeiting further propelled inflation. (Strangely enough, this is what the Nazis were preparing to do at the end of the war.) Both sides were paying for the war by printing Continentals. How could the currency not fail? Even if it had been backed by gold, they would have become worthless.
Further, even currencies backed by gold have failed, leading to government default. Spain did this repeatedly. Tying to the gold standard doesn't remove the politicians and their antics, but it does expose you to additional foreign problems. It just makes mismanagement harder to prevent, and makes government fraud easier to hide. (harder to perpetrate, but easier to hide == more attractive to fraud)
Wealth is too big of a thing to place in the hands of bureaucrats. Direct accountability means abolishing the federal reserve.
Yet, you haven't explained where the authority would go, or why specifically it would be better. Surely you don't want it to go to Congress, which has a pervasive history of corruption. You wouldn't be increasing transparency nor accountability, I can tell you that right now.
Because you know, heaven forbid that we actually have a real check on the monetary supply or -gasp- a meaningful currency rather than just meaningless variables on a computer screen and worthless pieces of paper and junk metal tokens.
And you mean gold isn't? They both have value specifically because people place value in them as money. (exchangeable stores of perceived value) They are both worthless otherwise. True, "precious" metals have some industrial and aesthetic value, but not nearly enough to support any prices that we've ever seen. (same with the metals in fiat coin, if you think about it)
And as for having a real check on monetary policy, it's really hard to devise. The makeup and rules of the FOMC should probably be adjusted. Fed actions and rational need to be openly published. Somebody outside the Fed needs veto power. Etc. Just abolishing the Fed only serves to move the problems somewhere else. It's easier to fix them where they stand. (in other words, extremely hard but possible)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.