Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Is Not Complying With Freedom of Information Act Requests, Alleges Lawsuit (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the non-compliant dept.

burtosis writes: The FCC is being sued for failure to turn over documents related to "correspondence, e-mails, telephone call logs, calendar entries, meeting agendas," between chairman Ajit or his staff and ISPs. Given the FCCs recent transparency issues, which appear to be directly ignoring the vast majority of feedback from Americans that are pro net neutrality, a nonprofit group called American Oversight is trying to force the real conversations the FCC is holding into public view. They are also asking for any communications with the media, Congress, and congressional staff. Two extensions for missed deadlines have been given, but the third extension was denied on July 24th. The FCC also ignored a FOiA request by Ars for the DDoS attack during the public comment period on net neutrality. With the current administration's attitude toward transparency and catering only to the largest corporate donors, will the American people have any meaningful influence in how the country is run anymore?

105 comments

  1. Government in General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Feds have been ignoring FOI requests for decades.

    Why the breathless reporting now? Oh, yes. Because it's all about YOUR pet issue.

    1. Re:Government in General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is simple: just don't record in meeting minutes or any fashion whatsoever the things you don't want the public to know about. Look, governing is rarely simple and you can never please everybody. In general, you don't want the public to know what goes in to making the sausage because it's kind of disgusting. The less they know the better, and the end result is the only thing that they need to be aware of and follow. If they want to question something, this is the only thing they should be able to question.

    2. Re:Government in General by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The solution is simple: just don't record in meeting minutes or any fashion whatsoever the things you don't want the public to know about.

      That seems like a strange "solution"

      What you're saying is "the way to avoid committing a crime, is to commit a crime".

    3. Re:Government in General by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yep... That's exactly what he said...

      Well, what he said was to not keep RECORDS by not putting anything into writing where it is subject to FOIA laws. This is EXACTLY the reason that some think Hillary did this "Private E-mail server" mistake, it was an effort to keep E-mail conversations from being subject to FOIA requests (or that's how some see it). The problem for Hillary is that she kept all these old E-mails around instead of routinely trashing them (mistake 2), then she didn't just turn them all over when they were requested (mistake 3) for some reason I cannot imagine...Oh well, her loss, literally...

      Businesses do this kind of thing all the time. Like my company's default E-mail retention policy of 14 days. Crazy as it sounds, they do this for liability reasons (as well as limiting server space). Record retention policies are usually about limiting legal liability in the case of a lawsuit. "Oh, you want the E-mail from 30 days ago with that court order? Sorry, we only have 14 days worth due to our records retention policy..."

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Government in General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Aren't you the ones who claimed that Trump would change all that ? That your beloved peodophile with the orange top would change everything, that he would make america great again ?

      Where's the change ? Are you still going to find ways to blame the democrats again, despite a republican president, a republican senate and a republican house ?

      Of course you will. You guys are simply just that pathetic.

    5. Re:Government in General by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      then [Hillary] didn't just turn them all over when they were requested

      Except she did turn over everything relevant. Since there were intermingled emails, turning over everything was not necessary, no matter how it was painted or looked like. This doesn't mean her email use wasn't a huge error in judgement.

      Like my company's default E-mail retention policy of 14 days. Crazy as it sounds, they do this for liability reasons (as well as limiting server space). Record retention policies are usually about limiting legal liability in the case of a lawsuit. "Oh, you want the E-mail from 30 days ago with that court order? Sorry, we only have 14 days worth due to our records retention policy..."

      I'm not sure how that would fly should you actually go to court. You're required to keep certain types of documents for far longer than 14 days, whether they are in email or not.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:Government in General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Oh well, her loss, literally...

      Hillary had more votes than Trump. Trump won because Americans have a perverse view of democracy.

    7. Re:Government in General by bobbied · · Score: 1

      then [Hillary] didn't just turn them all over when they were requested

      Except she did turn over everything relevant. .

      I'm going to stop you right there because the rest is pointless if you don't get this.

      IF you receive a court order to turn over your E-mail, YOU don't get to pick and choose what is turned over. It ALL goes, regardless of if you think they are relevant or not. You and your lawyers do NOT get to sort them out and filter them in any way. She was legally required to turn over ALL the E-mails she had when the order was received, not a filtered subset. Had she destroyed them BEFORE she reasonably knew they where under a court order, she'd be in the clear from the court order's perspective. However, her sidestepping of the FOIA laws by using a private server to do official State Department business would remain an issue for her.

      Since she turned over all "relevant" E-mails, we have found that a couple thousand of them where most decidedly work related where not provided though they where sent and received on this server. They where recovered from other accounts from other servers to which they were sent or received from and obviously came from Clinton's server. Further, we have discovered classified (at the time, and after the fact) information which was improperly sent over her server despite her claims to have not sent or received classified content... Based on this, I simply don't believe her claims..

      My point here is that if you routinely destroy records, documents, Email and other things like this, you cannot be held in contempt for not producing records which you destroyed BEFORE becoming aware of a possible court order to produce them. It's a good idea to do this from a legal perspective too, because it limits your liability exposure for past events (should someone decide to file suit at a later date). I was using Clinton as an example of why you might want to do this.

      All this does NOT imply that you shouldn't keep records. Sometimes there are legal and business reasons to KEEP them around. However, smart folks routinely destroy records once there is no legal or business reason to keep them.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Government in General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IF you receive a court order to turn over your E-mail, YOU don't get to pick and choose what is turned over.

      I've no idea what any court order said in the specific case you're talking about, but in general what you've said here is clearly bad advice. What you have to turn over on receiving a court order will depend on what the order says. It is incredibly unlikely to just say "your email", it might for example say "all emails in your possession", in which case your advice is probably reasonable (but seriously, refer to a lawyer not to some random idiot on Slashdot) or it might say "all emails relating to subject X" or "all emails received between dates A and B" etc., in which case it is appropriate to apply discrimination in which ones you hand over.

    9. Re:Government in General by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The problem of course is that we're expected to take her/her people's word for it that she turned over everything relevant. Whereas if she did commit a crime, she'd have to be pretty stupid to then turn over the evidence when given the opportunity to censor it out. Unless the crime were so minor that the obstruction of justice penalties, weighted by the probability of getting caught, would be considerably more severe.

      >You're required to keep certain types of documents for far longer than 14 days, whether they are in email or not.

      Again though, I suspect there's a very cynical risk-calculation going on. If they know that they're engaging in shady dealings, then the penalties for not retaining the required documentation are likely to be far less severe than those for being caught red-handed in the crime. Especially since record-retention policies are likely to result in penalties against the corporation (i.e. a fine against the corporate coffers, and maybe somebody loses their job as a result) while criminal activity would result in fines and/or imprisonment of the criminals themselves.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:Government in General by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      > In general, you don't want the public to know what goes in to making the sausage because it's kind of disgusting.

      I'm quite ok with how sausage is made. If you're disgusted by it, you might want to examine why.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    11. Re:Government in General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I've no idea what any court order said in the specific case you're talking about, but in general what you've said here is clearly bad advice.

      Right away it's clear you're going to make things up. You already started.

      > What you have to turn over on receiving a court order will depend on what the order says

      "turn over your E-mail," is the stated presupposition, but now you're putting forth FUD as to what another imaginary order says. This question of validity couched in a warning against non-existent advice is not compelling.

      > (but seriously, refer to a lawyer not to some random idiot on Slashdot)

      Stop editorializing if that's your only salient point. It just seems like you're referring to yourself.

    12. Re:Government in General by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Except she did turn over everything relevant. .

      I'm going to stop you right there because the rest is pointless if you don't get this.

      IF you receive a court order to turn over your E-mail, YOU don't get to pick and choose what is turned over. It ALL goes, regardless of if you think they are relevant or not. You and your lawyers do NOT get to sort them out and filter them in any way. She was legally required to turn over ALL the E-mails she had when the order was received, not a filtered subset. Had she destroyed them BEFORE she reasonably knew they where under a court order, she'd be in the clear from the court order's perspective.

      OK, the first part was that she deleted emails in 2014 after turning over related emails to the State dept, well before the first subpoena in Mar 2015. Which was specifically limited to items related to Libya:

      The subpoena, which was delivered to Clinton’s attorney in early March, requests all the documents sent to and from the private email Clinton used between Jan. 1, 2011, and Dec. 31, 2012, referring or related to the following subjects: Libya; weapons found traveling to or from Libya; the Benghazi attacks; and statements pertaining to the attacks.

      So no, she didn't have to turn over her entire email set and she could and should have filtered them to meet the subpoena. Now, you can speculate all you want, but unless you have proof somewhere that she had copies of any relevant emails that may have turned up, unsurprisingly, in state dept email servers, then you're just blowing hot air.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    13. Re:Government in General by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The problem of course is that we're expected to take her/her people's word for it that she turned over everything relevant. Whereas if she did commit a crime, she'd have to be pretty stupid to then turn over the evidence when given the opportunity to censor it out.

      Do you have any proof that any email of consequence from her was found on any other server? You do realize there's always 2 sources for emails when 1 is a "private" email server?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    14. Re:Government in General by Immerman · · Score: 1

      No, I have no proof - what sort of idiot would come forth with proof that they engaged in illegal activities with her? That would pretty much guarantee that no other politician would ever engage in such lucrative deals with them in the future.

      I assume she engaged in illegal activities because she is a politician, and that seems to be the safe default assumption. Doubly so for those who become rich - you don't get rich on a Senator's salary, or even a President's. (How do you recognize an honest politician? They stay bought.)

      Of course the alternative in the general election was an obviously thoroughly corrupt and generally vile businessman, so if there had been any chance of my state going to Donald Dreck I would have voted for her anyway.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re:Government in General by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I too despise Hillary. I despise Hilter, err, Trump, more.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    16. Re:Government in General by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that as if both sides aren't equally pathetic...you can't be that obtuse, can you?

  2. Opacity: The American Tradition by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "With the current administration's attitude toward transparency and catering only to the largest corporate donors, will the American people have any meaningful influence in how the country is run anymore?"

    Uh, current administration?

    Can someone tell me when the last time any administration was completely transparent and somehow didn't cater to their largest corporate donors? For fucks sake, this has been going on so long it's now considered an American tradition. Not even you great grandfather remembers a time when this wasn't true.

    The American People became irrelevant long ago.

    1. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      This administraton _IS_ transparent.

      We can see right through them.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're all the same! Nothing to see here!

    3. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all had serious transparency issues and trouble paying attention to public feedback. However, neither Bush nor Obama was by and large that bad, and the current administration is so bad it makes the previous ones look like paragons of transparency and responsiveness.

    4. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by deathguppie · · Score: 1

      Since the subject of this thread is the FCC and title II. We can safely say the last administration. Tom Wheeler did not obstruct or hide things.

      --
      once more into the breach
    5. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      They are *not* transparent! Trump's dad was a real man and Trump will tweet you to death if you say otherwise!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The FCC position has not changed during this administration - I don't see any reason to bring that up and I don't see any direct involvement from the administration in the FCC's handling of this. What attitude towards transparency are you referring to ? POTUS taxes ? Bogus collusion smears from anonymous sources by the CNN?
      I am no fan of Trump but none of those arguments has anything to do with governmental transparency.
      That is like saying Obama's administration was not transparent because he didn't show his birth certificate for a long time.
      (There might be other more legitimate reasons for not thinking B.O's administration was transparent)
      Please name actual governmental policies that goes against transparency and not just your gut feeling.

    7. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I worry about too much transparency" ~Slashdot Circa 2015

    8. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Native English speakers don't refer to it as "the CNN".

    9. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by bobbied · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I guess it depends on your political prospective.

      I saw Bush as somewhat opaque, but not unpleasantly or unreasonably so. Clinton was documented as a liar and was very misleading and opaque when push came to shove politically. But Obama was the textbook definition of opaque for 8 full years.

      I don't think Trump is opaque in the least, which is actually partly responsible for his PR problems. What you see is what you get with Trump, warts and all. He tweets out ill-advised stuff based on his feelings at the time and forces his PR folks to work overtime *explaining* how he's really towing the administration's stated position. We are actually getting a glimpse of how Trump thinks and how his administration is working (or not working depending on your view). This is transparency to a fault if you ask me.

      Now, I suppose if you think there was some kind of improper relationship with the Russians during the campaign he's trying to hide, and you admit that there is no direct evidence to support this claim, you MIGHT consider Trump's continued denials as being opaque. But you realize that this is only true if it turns out his denials are false...

      However, we are off topic here because the FCC people involved here are not Trump appointees, but long standing civil servants. As such, they don't reflect on Trump's OR Obama's administrations.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all had serious transparency issues and trouble paying attention to public feedback. However, neither Bush nor Obama was by and large that bad, and the current administration is so bad it makes the previous ones look like paragons of transparency and responsiveness.

      No. They're just being open about it now.

    11. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not even close to true. See how many times Judicial Watch and Legal Insurrection have filed lawsuits for information that's supposed to be public record. There is still standing lawsuits in the courts as holdovers from the Obama administration, and several cases where people in the previous administration have directly refused to turn over information that's public record despite court orders. If you think that the current administration is bad, then the previous one would be right around the blackest of nights, on the darkest of nights in terms of transparency. The Obama administration was very good at showmanship of trying to peddle transparency but that was it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he's actually a CIA agent and so used to prefixing "the" to "CIA" so people don't know he's one of them, he accidentally does it to "CNN" also.

    13. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all had serious transparency issues and trouble paying attention to public feedback. However, neither Bush nor Obama was by and large that bad, and the current administration is so bad it makes the previous ones look like paragons of transparency and responsiveness.

      Choosing the lesser of two evils is screwed up enough when we vote for a President. Comparing bad to worse in order to define the "good" administrations is equally fucked.

    14. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, Obama promised to shut down Guantanamo and ended up being worse for civil liberties than Bush. He promised transparency, but his legacy is the war on whistleblowers and an expansion of the powers needed to prosecute that war that now belongs to future presidents.

    15. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am actually a re-double agent from `the` GVMSÍ.

    16. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Trump tweeting whatever crap is on his mind is not transparency when government agencies are not responding to basic FOIA requests and where all sorts of basic government reports have been taken off-line or deleted; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/wildlife-watch-usda-animal-welfare-trump-records/ is one example.

    17. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama's was the most transparent administration in history. Look, if something is transparent, you *can't see it*. Doesn't anyone use dictionaries any more?

      I mean, how many whistleblowers had to flee the country to escape him? The current administration can't keep a secret to save its life, they are being constantly harmed by leaks from the permanent bureaucracy.

    18. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a two party system that crushes outsiders
      Campaign financing that is out of control
      A Congress that is little more than a millionaires club
      Monopolistic media control
      And you ask if Americans have any real influence in how the country is run?
      Wake up !!!
      Where have you been for the last 30 years?

    19. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because everyone knows government agency TLA's are acronyms, but marketing has clouded their minds enough that they've forgotten that CNN stands for Cable News Network.

      Acronyms that represent an organization get "the" in front of their letters (the IRS, the ASPCA), while brand names do not ("the Kraft Foods" and "the Facebook" just sound wrong).

    20. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop trying to sit on the fence you pussy.
      It doesn't work with trump it just makes you look like a cluebag. Yes the man is openly corrupt because it's how things have worked his whole life.

    21. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all had serious transparency issues and trouble paying attention to public feedback. However, neither Bush nor Obama was by and large that bad, and the current administration is so bad it makes the previous ones look like paragons of transparency and responsiveness.

      The "previous ones" are 10 presidents if you consider every iteration of the FOIA. The idea of institutionalized transparency is still in its infancy; I've got living family members that were alive and voting before it existed, and even the ones that weren't hadn't even heard of it until the past 20 years or so. There isn't a gold standard, idealized transparent administration that you can hold the others up to, so comparing which is worse is political dick measuring (I don't know if it's politically measuring dicks or measuring political dicks, I didn't put a lot of thought into it).

      Every administration is bad at it, for "good" reasons.
      The people should all be upset about how bad they are.
      The people have no legal path to improve the situation.
      The government has no incentive to improve the situation because penalties are rarely enforced, documents are redacted, extensions are granted, and the FOIA is amended.

      This entire neutrality situation with Pai and the telecom not-monopolies is playing out like a Saturday morning cartoon supervillain - only Captain Planet shows up, shrugs, flies off with a bag of money, and stops answering the calls from those damn kids.

    22. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by gtall · · Score: 1

      if stringing together unrelated thoughts into a confusing mess is thinking for you, then yes, we get to see how Trump "thinks".

    23. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by blindseer · · Score: 1

      You are comparing 8 months to 8 years. Can you even give a meaningful comparison with such a disparity of time frames? Especially when speaking of a something that inherently moves as slow as government?

      I'm not a big fan of our current POTUS but perhaps, just maybe, we could give him some time to clear out the old Obama holdovers and see how their replacements act before calling him worse than Clinton, Obama, AND Bush?

      How long should we wait before judgement? I don't know, two years perhaps, let him go through one election cycle at least. We really can't judge until he's out of office though. There's a lot of stuff he could pull on us yet, or make up for past problems. Obama pulled a lot of stunts in his last term, and only got worse after he knew the Republicans swept up in the election. Trump might not also show his true colors until he is also faced with a similar defeat.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    24. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Native English speakers also love their automated teller machine machines, and their personal personal identification number numbers. They don't know the difference between their/they're/there, weather/whether, or grey/gray.

      The Cable News Network is proper English, and the actual name of the company. They've probably spent all your adult life calling themselves CNN instead, but that doesn't make the CNN wrong. Like how the Central Intelligence Agency is correct, and so is the CIA, but the Pepsi is wrong in the context of the whole company.

    25. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Ralph+Yarro · · Score: 1

      They are *not* transparent! Trump's dad was a real man and Trump will tweet you to death if you say otherwise!

      His dad, maybe, but I heard Trump himself wasn't man enough to join the army. If you know what I mean.

      --

      The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
    26. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, I suppose if you think there was some kind of improper relationship with the Russians during the campaign he's trying to hide

      Yes obviously there was but I don't give a shit about it. I bet most of those hyperventilating over foreign influence campaigns and hacking look at organizations like AIPAC and their massive influence on US politicians on behalf of Israel and foreign influence issues don't even register with them.

      I personally think if sufficient number of people are not raised to be sufficiently savvy enough to filter out bullshit and demand coherent information all the protectionism against "foreign influence" isn't going to save society from turning to shit. There is more than enough bullshit available for "awake" fools to drown in locally sourced propaganda. It's not that I support it or am seeking in any way to justify it... I simply view it as irrelevant symptom of a larger problem.

      , and you admit that there is no direct evidence to support this claim,

      Why are qualifiers relevant? Why can't weight of specific evidence speak for itself without attaching ambiguous qualifiers?

      Is it direct evidence when Trump Jr gets an email explicitly stating Russian government has dirt they want to share with Trump campaign and then gleefully takes the meeting? Is it direct evidence when Roger stone talks to Hacking group responsible for obtaining said dirt and makes public statements predicting very specific future ahead of time while attempting to delete a bunch of incriminating shit from his twitter account?

      Evidence should be weighed according to merit rather than arbitrary ambiguous qualifiers communicated by those with an agenda.

      you MIGHT consider Trump's continued denials as being opaque. But you realize that this is only true if it turns out his denials are false...

      Everything out of Trump's mouth is a noun a verb and lie. In my view what he has to say is completely irrelevant. I judge the man to have no integrity. If he said 1 + 1 = 2 I would assume by default he was wrong until I bothered to do the math myself.

    27. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but past administrations have at the very least have made token efforts to appear transparent/responsive to the public. The Trump administration however seems to go out of their way to show off their corruption and that they don't care one bit about the public at large (the FCC Chairman was Associate General Counsel for Verizon). The only reason why we're getting any information out of the federal government these days besides "we're the greatest administration in history" line is that they rub so many people in the government the wrong way that most are all to happy to detail their failings. While neither situation is desirable, however it adds a whole new level of consequence when your government openly doesn't care about its citizens.

    28. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Please cite some actual evidence, not just regurgitating your left wing propaganda. Saying you are transparent (like Obama did) is not the same as being transparent. The Obama administration was the least transparent presidency in modern times, cutting out reporters regularly, using white house staff to photograph and film instead of reporters so they could control and "produce" events to their liking, stonewalling FOIs (there are still dozens pending from the Obama administration days) lying to judges so they can spy on AP and other reporters, and the list goes on.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    29. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is also how APK thinks but he also will string together unrelated words into an incoherent mess and calls it an argument. No wonder he loves Trump.

    30. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Some low level pawn takes some USDA information off line for a reason you don't like and you bludgeon Trump for being opaque?

      Which FOIA requests are you concerned about? As I recall there are complaints that Obama's administration didn't cough up a bunch of stuff that didn't seem to be fostering transparency... Stuff about Benghazi was routinely slow rolled as was information about Clinton's involvement, ostensibly because the "public story" didn't match the "actual facts" and there was an election or two to win. FOIA requests that the administration blocked and lost in court when their blocks where challenged...

      Next you are going to complain because Whitehouse.gov changed on January 20th 2017, and all of Obama's stuff got shuffled into some obscure archive...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    31. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yea, I don't think Trump's tweeting is a good idea either, but you have to admit that it's exactly the opposite of being opaque... It's sort of a blow by blow stream of how Trump thinks though things, unfiltered, unvarnished and unPC. I see them as more of a brainstorming session where Trump is spit balling his ideas to see how they sound... Decidedly NOT filtered or edited, transparent. He's not hiding anything, good or bad from his twitter followers.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    32. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People with a life don't worry about such the things

    33. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      https://newrepublic.com/articl...

    34. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Now, I suppose if you think there was some kind of improper relationship with the Russians during the campaign he's trying to hide

      Yes obviously there was.

      Citation please? (Hint: It may be obvious to you, but it's not based on any factual evidence.) There's been a whole lot of bloviating over the prospect, but no real evidence that anything improper happened between the Russians and Trump or his people. People goina believe what people want to believe I guess.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    35. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that article has zero evidence of any Trump wrongdoing. He was a real estate developer. Organized crime sometimes used real estate investment to launder their money. That is the only factual evidence contained in that article, everything else is innuendo.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    36. Re:Opacity: The American Tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? Some low level pawn takes some USDA information off line for a reason you don't like and you bludgeon Trump for being opaque?

      Which FOIA requests are you concerned about? As I recall there are complaints that Obama's administration didn't cough up a bunch of stuff that didn't seem to be fostering transparency... Stuff about Benghazi was routinely slow rolled as was information about Clinton's involvement, ostensibly because the "public story" didn't match the "actual facts" and there was an election or two to win. FOIA requests that the administration blocked and lost in court when their blocks where challenged...

      Next you are going to complain because Whitehouse.gov changed on January 20th 2017, and all of Obama's stuff got shuffled into some obscure archive...

      What has the previous administrations actions have to do with this article ? Nothing.
      This is about the FCC not complying with FoIA requests. Can you see where I got that information right from the top of the article ?

      Next you're going to complain about your lack of reading comprehension being due to some previous administrations actions as well...

  3. The Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is dead

    1. Re:The Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      'The Law is Dead. It was killed by those who are Democrats, and the Democrats keep it, until the time comes. The Law is Dead.'

    2. Re:The Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Coming from those who just elected Saruman as president of the Fucking United States.

      Better start practicing bowing down to your russian master Sauron now, because he doesn't share power.

    3. Re:The Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what do you know ?! The Putinbots have been quick downmodding this one to Hell, haven't they ?

      Watch how they mod down this one just as quickly...

    4. Re:The Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coming from those who just elected Saruman as president of the Fucking United States.

      Saruman? The wisest of the order, chief of the council, possessed of deep knowledge?

      Trump isn't that competent. The only thing they have in common is pride, but nothing else. Trump is more like an evil Cliff Clavin, or maybe Archie Bunker without a heart of gold.

      Or Boss Hog, without the amusing wit that Burgess Meredith brought to the role.

      It is hard to get a character with the right mix of arrogance, incompetence, and pomposity. Maybe Serpentor or Garrosh Hellscream?

      But Saruman? Pfft. Christopher Lee is rolling over in his grave.

      captcha? IMPEACH. SLASHDOT IS ALL KNOWING.

  4. When... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    have they ever?

    1. Re:When... by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tom Wheeler's FCC was much better about communicating with the public. The feedback mechanisms that Pai is ignoring were set up by that FCC.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:When... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ijit (idiot) Pai is trying to roll back not just Net Neutrality rules, but any regulation that his corporate owners and handlers want the Ijit to! And like his republithug masters, if you are not ultra wealthy, he doesn't care about you or your opinions!!

    3. Re:When... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explaining a joke/pun makes it no longer funny. That being said, you're not wrong.

  5. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NT

  6. Ajit Pai... by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

    Why would he comply?

    He has a lot to lose if it were to be made completely public.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  7. they really have FCCd themselves by johnjones · · Score: 1

    who in their right mind does not do a post mortem or at least send a email (OOB) when their infrastructure is suffering from what you might call a DDOS

    under american law would they have to turn over records to prove they didnt send anything ?

    John

  8. folks seen tossing their robots off bridges... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most complaining they are too nosy & push crappy products. they say if they're not completely submerged they keep coming back... gargoylian corepirate giants are threatening breach of life long contract requirements....

  9. vast majority of feedback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "vast majority of feedback" came in the form of dollars.

  10. Be careful what you wish for by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Among that supposed smoking-gun treasure trove of information you want, you might find things that you didn't want to know about.

  11. Keep on a'frothin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you wipe the foam off your lips and settle down in a couple years, do you think you'll be angry that none of these impassioned pleas and wildly uninformed dialogue you engage in here amounts to bupkis? Will you be angry when Net Neutrality has gone the way of the Dodo despite your misguided screed? Will you be angry when Trump gets re-elected in spite of your all-consuming and not just blind, but hallucinatory hatred for him?

    I'd be thinking about that.

    1. Re:Keep on a'frothin by peragrin · · Score: 2

      I don't know about him but you will be pissed when Comcast or time warner charge $10 a month extra so you can stream from fox. Don't think that will happen? Both own the "fake" news and not fox so they can make a Devine stream that forces you to pay and since theirs travels on their network it is free.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Keep on a'frothin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3.2.1.triggered!

  12. obligatory link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck the fcc
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  13. Meaningful Influence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course they will. The American people will have meaningful influence in the way their country is run once again as soon as they get off their collective rear and do what the founding fathers told them they had to do. Something they haven't *done* since they set the country up.

    Refresh the tree of liberty the old fashioned way, and anyone above the law who's even still alive will have a temporary (a few decades anyways) reminder that they're not actually invulnerable.

  14. If you want results.... by s.t.a.l.k.e.r._loner · · Score: 1

    It's almost time to vote from the rooftops

    1. Re:If you want results.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the roof?

      In this heat?

      I'll stick to grassy knolls, thank you very much.

  15. Americans Are Ignorant and SHOULD be ignored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    First of all, Americans are pro-net-neutrality only because they don't know what is actually in the "net neutrality" rules, which are actually quite anti-net-neutrality.

    The current "net neutrality" rules do not require any kind of neutrality or fairness whatsoever, and still allow ISPs to unfairly subsidize and prioritize some data over others, and even to transcode the media users are paying for so that it can be prioritized down on their networks. For example, unless you jump through some hoops, AT&T will automatically transcode any videos you watch down to 480i before streaming them to you, even if you are paying for a HD streaming service (unless it's from AT&T, of course, in which case not only do they not count it against your cap, but they don't downcode it). They do this without your asking and without telling you in a straightforward way. This is the opposite of neutrality, but is explicitly allowed under the current net "neutrality" rules.

    So... you tell me.. how is the current "net neutrality" scheme actually net neutrality? And why are Americans stupid enough to believe it is? Oh, that's right, it's called "net neutrality" in the title.

    Haven't Americans figured out yet that every law is named the exact opposite of what it actually does?

    1. Re:Americans Are Ignorant and SHOULD be ignored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GO back to your overregulated EU, you ignorant putz.

  16. Drunken ramblings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you quoting, exactly? The drunken ramblings of your abusive stepfather?

  17. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama's administration didn't enforce antitrust laws (and here I thought Republicans were the corporate party!) it's six and a half-dozen. Our government hasn't 'been on our side' writ large since the 50s or 60s. There's no left or right, just different corporate interests.

  18. Booty Calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The inertness of the FCC is why I keep seeing booty calls on broadcast DTV, 24/7/365.

  19. Did we have any with the previous administration.. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

    "With the current administration's attitude toward transparency and catering only to the largest corporate donors, will the American people have any meaningful influence in how the country is run anymore?"

    You seem to think this is a new phenomena but the American people DID NOT have meaningful influence with the previous administration or the one before that or the one before that, and so on...

  20. What "vast majority"? by mi · · Score: 1

    vast majority of feedback from Americans that are pro net neutrality

    Citation needed. Badly...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:What "vast majority"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick check of google shows:

      https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-americans-political-parties-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/

      http://thehill.com/policy/technology/339137-poll-60-percent-of-voters-support-fccs-net-neutrality-rules

      http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/internet-free-and-open-service-providers-conservatives/2017/07/13/id/801539/

  21. Jail time for contempt of court by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    Do what happens to anyone else when they disobey a court order. Send in the US Marshalls (FOI go through federal court I believe) and arrest everyone there and throw them in jail for a week for contempt of court. Then haul them before the judge and let them explain how they are going to meet the FOI and give them a week to do it. If they don't do it or make good faith progress, throw them back in jail and lose the key. Also revoke any position they hold for failure to discharge their office. That may happen automatically if they are charged and convicted of contempt of court.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by msk · · Score: 1

      mod parent up

    2. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Do what happens to anyone else when they disobey a court order. Send in the US Marshals (FOI go through federal court I believe) and arrest everyone there and throw them in jail for a week for contempt of court.

      Since the days of George Washington, there's been a longstanding tradition of Presidents ignoring laws they don't like. The fact of the matter is the executive branch executes the laws. The President is the one who holds the reigns of the DOJ, which governs the US Marshals and FBI(among other things, of course).

      If the executive wants to quash transparency and refuse FOIA requests, it can tell the DOJ to ignore enforcement, regardless of what the law says. The courts can't force the US marshals to do anything, because the DOJ works for the Executive, and they can't otherwise touch the President.

      Congress has one option when the President does this: impeach the President and replace him with someone who will enforce the law.

      Thus far, no President has been impeached for refusing to enforce a law, and it's incredibly unlikely to happen here.

      So, honestly, as long as the President has the FCC's back (and that certainly appears to be the case here), they can do whatever they want.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    3. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      There's more to the story than the parent suggests.

      The US Marshals ultimately get their marching orders from the DOJ, which in turn works for the President.

      Ultimately, the only way charges can be brought is if the President decides to enforce the law, which isn't mandatory in practice. (Congress has yet to impeach a President for not enforcing a law -- and there is a long history of Presidents ignoring laws).

      That sets up the administrations current annoyance:

      * President Trump knows he has the authority to fire everybody involved in Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, halt it, and go back to playing Golf in Florida.
      * In spite of the fact he can stop the investigation, he knows it's really stupid to do so: It's exactly what Nixon did, and we all know how well it worked out for him.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    4. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Yes, the president is immune to contempt of court, but not the FCC.

      The FCC is not part of the executive branch:

      The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government created by statute (47 U.S.C. 151 and 47 U.S.C. 154) to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. It reports directly to congress.

      So no, it is not on Trump that the FCC is violating legal FOI requests and is in contempt of court. And it's members are not immune from contempt of court charges.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    5. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      The reason Nixon was forced out in the end was that there as actually a criminal act (the Watergate break-in). So far there is zero evidence of criminal activity (meeting with someone, anyone, who says they have evidence that your political rival is engaged in criminal activity is not only perfectly legal, it is also your civic duty).

      I might think the Russian investigation was legitimate if there were evidence that someone:

      1. Actually hacked the election, which did not happen.
      2. Actually had evidence of a criminal act of Trump during the election cycle (even working with a foreign power is not a crime, or Bill Clinton would have been impeached for working with China to get elected and Ted Kennedy would have gone to jail for soliciting Russian interference in the Regan re-election).

      As it is, the Russian investigation is a witch hunt by partisans (nearly all of the people working under Mueller are either big Democrat donors or have previously WORKED FOR DEMOCRATS DIRECTLY.) Anyone who thinks that is fair is full of shit. The goal of the investigation is to try to find any crime so they can steal the election from Trump. If they can, they will catch him jaywalking 15 years ago and call it a high crime and try to get him impeached. In this day and age, every one of us probably breaks 5 laws a day so given enough time with unlimited resources, they will find something on Trump. Anyone who doesn't think this is true is either ignorant or lying.

      The smartest thing for Trump to do is require them to report their findings to congress after 8 months of investigating (in a week or two) on the original allegation (Russian interference). If there is no evidence, you end the investigation for lack of evidence of any crime after 8 months of investigating and give Meuller a verbal spanking on the way out for trying to expand his investigation past it's original mandate and maybe open an investigation into Mueller, the other Democrat operative investigators and any collusion they had with that leaking piece of shit Comey who created this mess by not publicly announcing in February that Trump was not suspected of any wrongdoing regarding Russia after he told him in private on 3 separate occasions and then created the Muller investigation by leaking his notes which contained classified information in an attempt to set up Muller as a special prosecutor, which it did.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    6. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      I must not have been clear: The FCC is not part of the executive; not question there.

      My point is that the President can direct the DOJ to ignore the FCC violating FOI requests.

      I'm not saying he has but that he can.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    7. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Nixon's crime was "Obstruction of Justice" by firing everybody involved until he got to somebody who would halt the investigation.

      There was zero evidence that he was involved with Watergate, or that it was done on his orders. Conjecture sure; but no hard proof. (Unless you count the missing minutes in his tapes as "proof" - no court would).

      If there actually was proof that Nixon was directly involved in watergate, he would have been screwed to the wall faster than you can say "wha?".

      I don't think that trump can require an investigation to report everything before it's complete; but I do agree his best bet is to just let the Special Counsel do his thing. Mueller hasn't been investigating for 8 months; he was only called as special council back in May 17th. Sure, time has passed, but not 8 months.

      It was a bit more than two years between the Watergate breakin and Nixon's resignation; If that is any sort of guide, then the current investigation will be going for quite some time.

      That's not necessarily a bad thing for Mr. Trump - he'll no doubt have to deal with a lot of butthurt until the investigation is over, but if he's cleared before the 2018 midterms, that can be a very good thing for Mr. Trump and the Republican Party, and it'll be much more likely to be in the public memory for the 2020 election.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    8. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      The Obama FBI and Comey started investigating Russian Trump ties/collusion/influence whatever you want to call it back before (or right after) the election. That is easily 8 months plus. (That is how Susan Rice was able to unmask people and then leak it to damage the Trump administration.) They didn't find any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Muller has access to all of those records and works plus his own team looking for several additional months.

      This is exactly opposite to how criminal investigations happen. Usually you have evidence that a crime has occurred, then you investigate who committed it. The Democrats are bat shit crazy that they lost the election and are convinced Trump is Hitler reincarnated, so they start with the person: Trump and try to work backwards to a crime that as of right now does not exist...

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    9. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, though as you point out, he has not.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    10. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Look: I've not really said anything in this thread defending (or promoting) anything the Democrats have done. To me, it's a turd from a different animal. Different, but it's still a turd.

      I've watched the (global) political shitshow long enough to know that however much I like (or dislike) any given administration, in the end not much really happens because the Federal government was designed to be a roadblock — specifically to avoid waves of major changes with each new election (as is found in other nations).

      Ultimately, the rules are in place, and I've become more interested in watching how the players play the game. The Democrats played poorly, and they did poorly in the election.

      The Trump administration's biggest fault, from my perspective, is that the number of "rookie PR mistakes" isn't tapering off. We shouldn't be too surprised that they happen- he's never held public office before. There's just a lot of "they could have handled that better."

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    11. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      No argument from me that the Trump administration is not filled with career politicians. This added to the fact that there are hundreds if not thousands of Obama holdovers trying to sabotage the administration (a la 121 leaks in the first 120 days) and numerous PR blunders by the administration has definitely been detrimental to the Trump administration, but you can't argue that the media is extremely hostile to Trump as well (CNN had something like 89% negative coverage of Trump since the inauguration).

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    12. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      The media is, on the whole, hostile to every president. It comes with the job; competing interests and no way to actually meet them all.

      You think Obama didn't have news media hating on him? It was about the equivalent time in his presidency that "Obamacare" was coined, he passed a massive (and controversial) bailout bill, and bumper stickers with him photoshopped as "the joker", and "why so socialist" was everywhere — to say nothing of the birther crowds, and newspapers & talk radio saying he'd repeal the 2nd amendment. He was famous even among the Democrats for being unable to relate with the average American. There was at least as much unsubstantiated bullplop published against him as President Trump.

      Clinton tried his own healthcare bill, with Hillary leading the effort. That hatred still burns strong 24 years later!

      W.Bush was allegedly a blithering idiot that "stole the election" in Florida, and was asleep at the wheel before 9/11.

      Regan was amazingly good at handling criticism from the press; he was so good that he earned the nickname "The Teflon President" because the press couldn't get anything to stick, in spite of some actual scandals like Iran/Contra.

      The simple fact is our society respects people who take their lumps with some class and style, and unlike Regan, President Trump doesn't know how to do it.

      President Trump handles criticism very differently than earlier presidents. For one, reporters who interview him say that he speaks a little too casually, and often is the leak, which does him no favors. The other is that he "hits back" when criticized, even over trivial things.

      Most kids who survived an American high school know that fighting back against a crowd that's teasing you will only make matters worse.

      The President of the United States has been the nation's punching bag for a very long time; there's just nothing new about scathing presidential criticism.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    13. Re:Jail time for contempt of court by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Is that why Chris Mathews had a thrill run up his leg during the Obama inauguration? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Obama had the friendliest media coverage in the last 30 plus years. George W. Bush was treated so unfairly by the establishment media that it literally launched Fox news as one of the largest cable news outlets because people (especially conservatives) were so sick of the rampant left wing bias. By any meaningful statistic George W Bush and Trump have both been treated horribly by the press, and Obama had a continuous love fest with the exception of Fox News (who he tried to kick out of the WH news pool and lied to a fedeal judge so he could spy on their reporters like James Rosen). With the exception of Rush Limbaugh and a few other COMMENTATORS with relatively small audiences (not the national news outlets) Bill Clinton got very favorable coverage until he was caught sexually harassing an intern in the white house (and there he earned what he got). Hillary Clinton was caught during the campaign getting questions passed to her ahead of the debate from Donna Brazile of CNN, a clear violation of debate standards, and an unfair advantage for which Brazile was fired. http://www.washingtonexaminer....

      http://www.washingtontimes.com...
      https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
      http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

      "President Trump handles criticism very differently than earlier presidents. For one, reporters who interview him say that he speaks a little too casually, and often is the leak, which does him no favors. The other is that he "hits back" when criticized, even over trivial things."

      I agree that Trump hits back every time, no mater how trivial, but I think that is due in large part to what happened with George W. Bush. Bush chose to be classy and didn't "stoop to their level" with the openly hostile media and that ended up with him essentially being constantly pounded by the press who saw it as weakness. Bush was certainly not the best public speaker, but he was also not a blithering idiot, anyone who thinks he was is an idiot and ignorant of historical facts.

      "Most kids who survived an American high school know that fighting back against a crowd that's teasing you will only make matters worse."

      Apparently Trump learned the same lesson that I did in high school. If you have a crowd that is teasing you, single out the most obnoxious one and beat the piss out of him. I only had to do that one time and I never go teased again. I tried ignoring them for a year beforehand (like George Bush taking the high ground) and that was definitely not the solution.

      "The President of the United States has been the nation's punching bag for a very long time; there's just nothing new about scathing presidential criticism."

      By commentators and comedians maybe, but hard news people are supposed to be sticking to facts, and so far with Trump that is clearly not the case. They are actively participating in an attempt to steal the election from Trump because they personally hate the man, and if/when Trump is cleared of any wrong doing (which he almost certainly will, after 8 months of investigation, all the facts so far do not indicate any criminal activity), I hope Trump sues each and every news outlet who reported falsely on the Russia "scandal". If CNN and a few other major outlets go the way of Gawker, the shit heads running the other outlets will get their minions under control for fear of losing t

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  22. Since when? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "will the American people have any meaningful influence in how the country is run anymore?"
    On what date did you actually start to believe you had any influence in the first place?

  23. Re:Did we have any with the previous administratio by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Actually, the current administration is the most transparent in decades. The last administration was the least transparent based on actual facts and historical evidence (as opposed to liberal propaganda). Furthermore, the current ADMINISTRATION is populist in most of it's positions, as opposed to the Republican party in general who is much more pro business as you indicated.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  24. Swamp to Desert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Trump Administration drained the swamp only to replace it with... a desert?

    Is that winning? Not in my book.

  25. Re:Did we have any with the previous administratio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    citations please. Can we have some objective proof?