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.
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
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
The Executive Branch delegates that to the Attorney General/US DOJ. Also, I see the lack of comment as a good thing, because if they didn't take this matter seriously, they'd have simply stated it had been dismissed out of hand. In this case though, it seems they do take it seriously.
Keep in mind that no Police Investigation aside from those run by the Keystone Cops starts with a public announcement saying they will investigate.
They say they are investigating *after* news outlets like CNN and FOX have reported that a bunch of FBI Agents raided offices and took away records and computers from those offices. Why give Dodd any more opportunity to hide, destroy evidence?
He probably didn't break the law, and that's the sad truth. There's a very fine line, maybe a smudge, between being paid for votes, and being paid because you support a platform. They amount to the same thing, at the end of the day, but one is illegal and the other isn't. What he said on Fox news was probably not illegal either, once put in this framework. It would shake my confidence if I ever had any.
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.
people growing up, NOW, can realize this. the internet teaches much more of the truth than the textbooks or teachers (are allowed or will).
we didn't have any kind of internet (not even BBS dialup, at the time) and our means to share info was very local and very limited. we were brought up in near total ignorance. 'trust authority'. all that stuff - that we now know is opposite and untrue.
today, kids DO have the ability to hear more than one side of the story. well, for as long as the internet remains free...
I hope that over the next 20 or so years, this generation weeds out the older guys and pushes thru a new style. I have zero hope for today's old rulers, but tomorrow's rulers could actually be from an informed base.
and sadly, I think the old guys in charge know this, too. they want to milk things as they are for the next 5-25 years, until *they* die out. after that, they don't much care how the world runs. but they do want to keep the world and power base as it is right now.
the struggle is: do we allow that and for how much longer?
this is the class war. its real. its simmering, but its growing, to be sure.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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 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
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
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.