Tuesday Night Open Thread

Our morning open thread is full. Here's another one.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange may seek asylum in Ecuador.

Jerry Sandusky's wife testified today and ABC reports his lawyers say they are leaning towards him taking the stand (no link for ABC because their videos play automatically.)

Mitt Romney says he is vetting Mark Rubio as a VP choice.

Your turn, all topics welcome.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Obama Asserts Executive Privilege: Holder Held in Contempt >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Assange correctly fears Obama (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Andreas on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 10:37:36 PM EST
    Julian Assange correctly fears the criminal activities and persecution by Barack Obama and the "Democratic" US government.

    Or perhaps, Julian Assange ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:17:56 AM EST
    ... correctly fears having to face humiliation and judgment in a Swedish courtroom, because maybe -- just maybe -- those two former female WikiLeaks volunteers are telling the truth that the sexual relations he had with each of them was coerced, and was not consensual.

    Speaking for myself only, I can accept the possibility that people can be both saints and sinners, just as I can walk and chew gum simultaneously. Thus, I can applaud the laudatory public service Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have performed, and still conclude that Assange should answer these charges in Sweden regarding the alleged less-than-savory aspects of his private life and personal behavior.

    Personally, I find this contention that the U.S. State Dept. is somehow orchestrating these legal proceedings from behind the scenes in both the United Kingdom and Sweden -- two highly developed European nations who hardly fit the description of vassal states -- in order to get their hands on Assange, to be a wee bit of a stretch.

    Assange's claims of Machiavellian maneuverings to silence him brings back to me a flood of musty old memories regarding the curious case of Ronald Rewald, the former Honolulu high roller with powerful friends in very high places who claimed in federal court, after he was arrested and indicted on charges of operating a multi-million dollar international ponzi scheme to support his lavish lifestyle, that he was actually a CIA agent.

    Now, ABC News did a major two-part investigation that offered considerable reason to believe that Rewald's phony Honolulu investment firm did in fact enjoy a substantive CIA connection, at least in its early days. Certinly, it was more than enough to cause the Federal Judge Sam King to order all all CIA-related documents from the courtroom proceedings sealed, on national security grounds.

    That said, the overwhelming preponderence of evidence presented against Rewald still leads one to easily conclude that for all his wild claims, he was simply nothing more than a major bunko artist of the first order -- the Bernie Madoff of the Pacific Rim, as it were. without a doubt, he had clearly defrauded numerous investors of millions of dollars, including the late Jack Lord of the original Hawaii Five-O. And I'd lay better than even odds that, truth be told, he had probably swindled the CIA out of millions of dollars, too!

    Rewald was found guilty of felony fraud and sentenced to 80 years in federal prison. He was later paroled from Terminal Island Federal Penitentiary, and now lives in Los Angeles, working for a Beverly Hills talent agency. His garish former waterfront mansion in east Honolulu -- which is less than three blocks from where I live -- sits empty still to this very day, sealed off by high walls and overgrown foliage.



    Assange doesn't fear the Swedes (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:48:47 AM EST
    He fears the USA and its Virginia indictment.

    It's clear you've never investigated the case, have no idea what penalties he'd face in Sweden (and thus the idea that he's scared of their prisons is ludicrous), know nothing of the actual charges he might face (he's never been formally charged) and, in general, are just being obnoxious.

    Me? I spent well over 300 hours reading various progressive, feminist, MRA, and other blogs about the case -including this one. I know of the differences between most countries sexual assault laws and Swedens , I know the names of the two complainants , I've followed the various debates about it such as the one sparked off by Noami Wolf, and etc.

    But hey, it's easy to "speculate" and compare Assange with some grifting con artist I've never heard of.

    The only thing I can come up with is that you don't want the Obama Justice Department looking bad when the inevitable extradition request is made, assuming Sweden gets him after all.


    Don (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:20:29 AM EST
    is in the speaknoevilofObama camp.

    Donald, separate and apart from your not (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 08:20:01 AM EST
    having the facts of Assange's situation right, I think perhaps this passage from Glenn Greenwald's recent post on Assange might bring you back to the basic principles that guide TalkLeft (bold is mine):

    Just to address some media chatter I'm seeing around: Assange has not "fled" anything, is not a fugitive, and did not concoct some new and exotic procedure to evade legal process. Everyone knows exactly where he is: at Ecuador's Embassy in London. Seeking asylum based on claims of human rights violations (such as unjust extradition) is a widely recognized and long-standing right, as Foreign Policy documented during the recent Chen Guangcheng drama. It's a right that Assange, like everyone else, is entitled to invoke. If Ecuador refuses his asylum request, then he'll be right back in the hands of British authorities and presumably extradited to Sweden without delay. He has a lot at stake, and -- like anyone else accused of serious crimes (though he's not been charged with anything) -- he has every right to invoke all legal procedures available to him.

    As to the facts of Assange's situation, he has not been charged with anything:

    Assange has been fighting extradition to Sweden for a year-and-a-half now, during which time he has been under house arrest. He has never been charged with any crime in Sweden, but a prosecutor from that country is seeking his extradition to question him. After the British High Court ruled against him by a 5-2 vote earlier this month, and then refused to re-hear the case last week, his appeals in Britain contesting the extradition are exhausted.

    Assange's resolve to avoid extradition to Sweden has nothing to do with a reluctance to face possible sex assault charges there. His concern all along has been that once he's in Swedish custody, he will far more easily be extradited to the U.S.

    I don't know how anyone who has paid the slightest attention to how the Obama administration is dealing with whistleblowers, and most especially, how it has dealt with Bradley Manning, with whom Julian Assange is inextricably linked, could possibly fail to understand Assange's reluctance to being extradited to the US once he would be turned over to the Swedish authorities.


    There's something I don't understand about (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:48:54 AM EST
    people's support for Manning's actions. Can you explain to me how his releasing 400,000 military reports from Iraq and 91,000 from Afghanistan was a good thing when doing so endangered the lives of the over 150,000 US troops serving in those regions? As someone with family and friends who are/were there, it's a toughie to wrap my head around.

    IMO, whistleblower laws are designed to protect those who help: pointing out that your boss is cooking the books, or that non-Kosher cuts beef are being used in hot dogs. Revealing troop info that could get our service people killed? That seems like a different sort of thing.


    If you ask me... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:04:13 AM EST
    our leaders who sent our men and women to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan were the ones doing the endangering...Manning & Assange were just letting our leader's bosses, aka we the people, know what they've been up to.

    I consider giving the American people the straight dope to be a help, not a hinderance.  Too many secrets are kept from us.


    That might be fine in a perfect world (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:08:31 AM EST
    But in reality, when you leak the names of people who are risking their lives to help us, you put their lives and the lives of their families in danger.  When you leak the movements of troops, you put their lives in danger - they are over there doing a job.  It was not their decision to be there, but they are doing a job, and risking their lives in the process.  Why should their job be made more dangerous?  If our government is doing "bad stuff" that needed to be exposed by Wikileaks, then why couldn't that kind of stuff be taken out?  Totally irresponsible and frankly, on par or worse than "our leaders who sent our men and women to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan."

    We may be at different places on some topics, (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:18:54 AM EST
    but I can't agree more with what you just said about endangering our brothers and sisters who are serving.



    I don't know in what universe... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:29:13 AM EST
    reporting on a war/occupation can be considered on par or worse with starting a war/occupation.

    Blaming Assange or Manning for getting anybody killed sounds a lot like "shoot the messenger" to me.  Leaked cables don't get people killed, governments do.


    Really? (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:35:15 AM EST
    Leaked cables don't get people killed, governments do.

    Information doesn't get people killed?  You know that for a fact?


    Hypothetical... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:01:26 AM EST
    Mr. X decides to cooperate with the police to bring down a mobster.  The mobster gets wind of it through a police department leak and murders Mr. X.  Who murdered Mr. X killed?

    My answer...the mobster killed Mr. X, with an assist from Mr. X himself, whose own actions got himself killed.



    Yes, (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:05:40 AM EST
    There is an inherent risk in passing information -no doubt about that.  More reason than not to keep that informant's identity a secret to all except those who need to know.

    In your hypotheticaly however, despite your feelings, Mr. X's killer (the mobster) will still presumably be investigated, arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced.  

    Probably not so with people like suicide bombers and such.


    And (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:07:39 AM EST
    From your hypothetical, it seems that you are saying that Mr. X took a risk and knew the potential consequences and now he is (partially) responsible for those actions.

    Why do you feel differently about this than say, someone who smuggles drugs, gets caught, is convicted, and has to serve jail time?  Doesn't that person know the risks and should assume the consequences as well?


    Yes... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:16:09 AM EST
    I'm saying when you mean to do somebody harm, whether nefariously or nobley, you must expect retaliation if you're found out.

    Drug smugglers aren't meaning anybody harm...they are meaning to provide a product to willing customers.  The legal consequences are not natural consequences.  They shouldn't be surprised if they are caught and caged, true, thats the tyrannical insane world we have made for ourselves.  But that's a far cry from "having it coming" like an informant meaning to jam somebody up or get somebody killed/caged.


    Troop movement and security is a (none / 0) (#81)
    by sj on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:13:55 AM EST
    contemporaneous issue.  Well, present and future.  Disclosing historical troop movements is an open barn door situation.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:19:37 AM EST
    Unless of course, the troops were going to use the same routes and methods again in the future,  because it worked well in the past. Also, any half-witted analyst could then figure out future plans based on how American and British troops assessed incidents, moved troop forces, etc.

    And of course, that still doesn't address the leaking of names of people helping us and the danger they and their families have been placed in.


    Okay (none / 0) (#170)
    by sj on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:44:45 PM EST
    Show me where that happened.  I would like to know.  And once again, the administration was so concerned about those issues that they declined to review the material when it was offered.

    That's a big topic, Farmboy (none / 0) (#73)
    by sj on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:52:57 AM EST
    If you want real, in-depth answers -- which can't adequately be addressed in a comment -- then I recommend reading Glenn Greenwald's archives.  He has a point of view, but is scrupulous about separating rumors and allegations from fact.

    I have read a number of Greenwald's articles on (none / 0) (#82)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    the topic over the years, and it's hard to consider him an objective source when he employs titles like "Bradley Manning deserves a medal."

    Regardless, I'm glad you mentioned him because it's the "you can't prove service people died as a result of Manning's actions" defense that he and others promote that bothers me most. Saying that the ends justify the means is a little too ethically shady for me.

    If Manning's release of classified military information had resulted in the deaths of US troops, would Greenwald - and others who now support Manning's actions - then condemn those actions?


    I just finished (none / 0) (#174)
    by sj on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:59:28 PM EST
    saying that he has a point of view.  I also said that he is scrupulous about separating rumors and allegations from fact.  

    If you want objective, I really wonder where you are going to find that.  I am of the opinion that there really is no such source.  Facts may be facts, but even facts can be spun.  As for this:

    If Manning's release of classified military information had resulted in the deaths of US troops, would Greenwald - and others who now support Manning's actions - then condemn those actions?
    Good question.  The time to ask is when such information has been found.  And if such information has been found I would like to read it.  I, myself, haven't found any.

    SJ, I disagree on Glenn Greenwald (none / 0) (#203)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:09:13 PM EST
    In my opinion, he relentlessly twists facts to suit whatever case he's trying to make. Here's what I've written about him.

    Anne quotes Greenwald:

    Assange's resolve to avoid extradition to Sweden has nothing to do with a reluctance to face possible sex assault charges there. His concern all along has been that once he's in Swedish custody, he will far more easily be extradited to the U.S.
    Can he read Assange's mind? It has been stated repeatedly that it would be harder to extradite from Sweden, and I realize supporters deny that. But here's one factor not mentioned by supporters: Sweden could not extradite him to the U.S. without U.K. permission.

    Greenwald says Assange has not fled anything, and is not a fugitive. But that's how British law sees him. He fled the conditions upon which he was released on bail. Police are not going into the embassy because of Assange's rights, but because of Ecuador's rights.

    Anne underscores what Greenwald also repeats: Assange has not been charged with anything. British Senior District Judge Howard Riddle already has ruled that Sweden wants to prosecute Assange, but formal charges can't be made until he returns to Sweden for interrogation.

    Meanwhile, this fall will mark 2 years that the two Swedish women have had to remain in hiding.

    Anne, newspapers have generally been owned by people with money, and I agree that there's less investigative journalism now than in the 70s and 80s, when newspapers were more profitable.
    Nevertheless, Assange did rely on mainstream newspapers to put the data from Manning into context.

    From the Guardian: U.S. cables from Ecuador discussed widespread police corruption. Saying the U.S. was trying to meddle in police affairs, Ecuador expelled the U.S. ambassador, who may have had trusted sources there. Meanwhile, President Correa has cracked down on privately owned media.

    People don't have to decide whether to blame Bush for the wars or whether to prosecute Manning. It's not an either/or situation.


    I could be wrong, Suzie, but I (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:52:45 PM EST
    think Glenn may have interviewed Assange, but even if he has not, I think Assange has given enough interviews and expressed exactly what Glenn has said - that he fears extradition to the US - that what Glenn is doing isn't mind-reading.  

    And I think you may be wrong about the extradition being (1) harder to do from Sweden and (2) that Sweden would need UK permission to extradite Assange to the US - and that second claim I would really like to have more information about, if you have something you can cite.

    In my mind, the balance of power as between the government and the people is seriously out of whack; I'm open to shifting it back in the most responsible, lawful way possible, but I am not hopeful that the people will prevail in that endeavor.


    Anne, just because Assange says something (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:16:30 PM EST
    doesn't mean it's true. Greenwald should know that and use attribution, e.g., "Assange says his only fear is that he will be extradited to the U.S., tortured and executed (or whatever)."

    On this blog, for example, Jeralyn urges people to say when they are speculating, as opposed to saying something like this: "Zimmerman was afraid for his life ..." That's what he said, but none of us can know for sure what GZ or TM thought.

    In his ruling, Judge Riddle made the statement:

    If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange's extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State's decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also.
    I spent much of my career trying to get information out of government entities, and so, you and I don't disagree on that. But I'm wary of defining what "the people" want. I'm betting the great majority would rather watch the Kardashians than read the U.S. cables. Look at Cryptome. John Young hasn't been arrested, nor has he required millions in contributions.  

    Anne, the part I don't understand (none / 0) (#63)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:32:22 AM EST
    is how Assange would be more vulnerable to a US extradition effort in Sweden than in Britain.  Can you explain that to me?  It seems to me that, if anything, Britain could be expected to be more acquiescent in a US extradition request than would Sweden, at least politically. Perhaps I haven't been following his case closely enough, and I should already understand this point, but I don't.

    Peter, I looked around a bit, (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:34:50 AM EST
    and was able to find this:

    Some critical voices claim that the UK-US extradition treaty is more permissive than the Sweden-US extradition treaty. Extradition to the US, they claim, would be simpler from the UK than from Sweden.

    This argument fails on several points:

     The UK's extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender ('conditional release') clause. The UK's judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

     Public opinion and the media (to a greater extent) are more sympathetic to Julian Assange in the UK than in Sweden. Public pressure could draw out the process of extradition to the United States in the UK. In Sweden the media climate is hostile (see Media climate in Sweden) due to the sex allegations. Public outcry would be significantly weaker and therefore less likely to stand in the way of a strategically convenient extradition.

     In the UK, Julian Assange is better able to defend himself, muster support and understand the legal procedures against him. In Sweden on the other hand, the language barrier prevents him from effectively challenging the actions against.

     The UK is politically better positioned to withstand pressure from the United States than Sweden. Sweden is a small country of nine million people close to Russia. It has grown increasingly dependent on the United States. In recent years Sweden has complied with directives from the United States in a manner that has not been scrutinised by Parliament, as has been revealed by the disclosed diplomatic cables (see Political Interference).

    There's some interesting reading on that page I linked to; I know some people will be skeptical because it is a pro-Assange page, but my thinking was that who better to have researched the ins-and-outs of extradition than they are?  I certainly have a better understanding of the issue after reading it.


    If I thought that the leakers (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:50:40 AM EST
    have not caused the death and injury to innocent people I could have some sympathy.

    I do think their actions caused death and injury.

    Some may argue that the results justify the means.

    The dead cannot respond.

    He deserves his day in court. Nothing more than any other person seeking what:

    is a widely recognized and long-standing right,

    To quote Grenwald.


    Why do you believe (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Makarov on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    that WikiLeaks releases have caused 'death and injury to innocent people'? We discussed this in the open thread yesterday.

    I have not seen one media report confirming death or injury to anyone due to WikiLeaks in whole or even in part. Months after Obama administration and military officials speculated that release of the Afghan and Iraq War files and State Dept cables would lead to deaths, there hadn't been one case.

    McClatchy report in November 2010:

    But despite similar warnings ahead of the previous two massive releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death.

    Moreover, before the release of US State Dept cables, WikiLeaks extended an offer to the US government to edit the names of confidential sources to protect them and their families. The US Govt declined every offer of this sort before and after. My memory fails me if they did the same before the Afghan and Iraq war files, but I believe they did.

    Even if (and that's a big, unproven to date 'if') WikiLeaks had directly or indirectly caused an informant or innocent to suffer retaliation, the US government would be at least partly to blame by their own failure to cooperate.

    As one poster noted yesterday (MilitaryTracy, I believe), the US military did get out in front of the release of the Afgan war files, and take action to protect an unknown number of informants in that region.


    Do you really think (none / 0) (#142)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:45:53 PM EST
    I have not seen one media report confirming death or injury to anyone due to WikiLeaks in whole or even in part.

    The US government (or British government) would compound this cluster (bleep) by saying, "Joe Smith was a double agent for us in Iraq and he was killed by rebel insurgents.  His family, including his wife,Jenny, and 3 daughters (Sofia 8, Ashley 4, and Laura 2), are all presumed to be in hiding in Jordan?"

    You hear of many CIA agents getting killed?  No - because that would blow the covers of those working with them and their families.


    Are you kidding me? If there were (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:03:03 PM EST
    one death that could be confirmed, we would know about it - it wouldn't come with a name, but we would be told, of that I am completely certain.

    As crass as it is to think about, I have no doubt that this government would use a death or deaths to maintain the chokehold they have on secrecy in all areas, even those where there is no reason for it.


    You're probably right (none / 0) (#177)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:07:20 PM EST
    That's not to say it didn't happen or won't happen though.

    true (none / 0) (#182)
    by sj on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:13:19 PM EST
    That's not to say it didn't happen or won't happen though.

    Just like we can't say that we will never be hit by a bus that made an illegal turn.  

    Seriously, you are ready to "convict" for something that could maybe, possibly happen.  And you know what?  It maybe, possibly could.  Life is full of risks and potential dangers.  I find a greater danger to all citizens (not just military and diplomatic) in the secrecy.


    Actually (none / 0) (#190)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    I'm not ready to "convict" on anything.

    Manning is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  But if he is found guilty, then I have no sympathy for someone who 1) knowingly 2)defied his command and broke laws - some very serious laws, by the way, which, whether or not actually harmed any one to date, had (and still has) the potential to do great harm to many people. Let me say as an aside, if Manning did this, then I feel that was very brave on his part if his intent was his conscience demanded it.  If he did it because he was mad at the command or someone else and wanted to "get back at them", then I have no time for that.

    I believe Assange is an egomaniac who thinks he should be hailed as a hero and a legend in his own time.

    In case you haven't noticed it, I'm really big on people actually taking responsibilty for their actions.  I don't think that's a bad thing, even though it doesn't seem to be a popular theme in some parts, I think most people actually feel that way.  It's just so extremely tiring hearing excuses people make for others, whether it's for politicians, criminals, parents, school kids, people you do business with, co-workers, bosses, subordinates, clergy, etc.- "Everybody does it", "So and so was worse / will be worse", etc. As I've said before, you may have a reason for doing what you do, but it does not excuse your bad behavior.

    Hey, just because you pulled a gun in the bank and no one got hurt, no harm, no foul, right?

    But if you are going to be brave enough to take on the US government, then you had better be prepared to face the wrath of that same government. If Manning is guilty, then he made a conscious choice to leak classified and sensitive documents, knowing the potential consequences included up to the death penalty.

    But excusing the act of leaking documents because "no one got hurt" (that we know of) is just not the proper response, IMO.


    In my opinion, this government could (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:57:18 PM EST
    benefit from being reminded that it is of the people, by the people and for the people, as opposed to what it seems to be becoming: a government over the people, complete with wrath that is designed to intimidate and shut people up.

    At some point, our government started classifying material on a near-wholesale basis, putting it out of the reach of anyone who wasn't willing to put in the time and effort to go through FOIA, and further securing it by use of "state secrets" claims that didn't have to be justified.  The truth is that we simply don't know what the government knows anymore, or what it's doing; we are spoon-fed what they want us to know through selective leaking and the always-anonymous sources who never have to be accountable.  

    Is it possible Bradley Manning broke the law?  Yes, but there is something seriously wrong with this country if the only way we can ever find out what our government is doing, in context, and hold that government accountable for it, is to break the law.

    If we, as citizens, have to be accountable for our actions, have to be held to the rule of law, why don't the people who are elected and appointed to all levels of government have to do the same?

    Accountability is not supposed to be a one-way street, but the government is using - abusing - its power to ensure that it is, and that's just wrong.


    America has never been of the people (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:59:04 PM EST
    Our Constitution originally protected only white men with property. The government kept many secrets. It has only been in recent decades that the public has become more aware of the secrecy and been given structures to obtain (some) information.

    There are many ways to find out what the govt is doing, short of breaking the law. Ask any investigative journalist.


    You're still making the same argument - the ends (none / 0) (#196)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:24:26 PM EST
    justify the means. I don't buy into the ethos that actions should be judged right or wrong on the basis of their consequences.

    To be clear, however, I fail to buy into that line of thought because I do believe that actions can be ethically right or wrong. If a person doesn't believe that, or disagrees on what is an ethically wrong action, then there is no downside for that person to taking the action.

    So since I believe that the act of releasing military information that endangered our troops was ethically wrong, no revelations that Aha! the Gov't has secrets! OMG! will make that a "right" decision. There are ethical ways to hold the gov't accountable for its actions that don't endanger others' lives.


    That (none / 0) (#199)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:47:40 PM EST
    is a completely different argument.  Do I believe our government keeps more secrets from us than is absolutely necessary?  Yes.  I completely agree with you on that, and I don't know what the answer is to that, but I also realize that any time someone talks about more "government transparency", they are trying to blow smoke up our a$$es. But lack of transparency does not translate into giving a free pass to an alleged leaker.  It's not the same issue.

    Again - just because someone may not agree with the laws does not give that person a right to not obey the law. And if that person makes a choice (there's that phrase again) and consciously violates the law anyway, then he or she should not be surprised when there are consequences, and neither should anybody else.  Nor should anyone try to make excuses for them by arguing other issues.  It's the same argument people around here make in any other crime-related issue - the Obama administration didn't go after Bush / Cheney, or the banksters therefore they should never go after anybody else. It has no bearing on the case at hand.


    No one that I am aware of here has (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 05:19:47 PM EST
    ever made the argument that giving the Bush administration a pass means never going after anybody else; I truly do not know where you are getting that from.

    As for government transparency, when promised by those with the power to provide it, yes, it's probably so much BS, but I think it's imperative to work to both hold them to their promises and not rely on them to do what they say they will.

    Suzie, in the comment below, tells us that this has never been a government of the people, and what I would say is that whatever progress we've made in areas of equality, we are returning to the days when only the wealthy have any power.

    And Suzie says there are other ways to get information - from investigative journalism - which, I am sorry to say, is something of a dying art given that the corporate masters who have an interest in keeping a lot of information out of the mainstream are the same masters who pay the salaries of these journalists.  We have token investigative journalism, something the big media outlets can point to as proof of their commitment to the community.

    No one's suggesting Bradley Manning shouldn't have to answer for his actions, but what he did, what Assange made possible, puts front and center how much our government keeps from us in a way that no investigative journalist has.

    You and I are never going to agree on this, so I will get off my soapbox and simply end with my belief that if we don't soon shift the balance of power back our way, things are only going to continue to get worse.  A lot of things.


    People say it all the time around here (none / 0) (#207)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:53:40 PM EST
    Including you.

    It:s called the "yeah, but" stance.  Every time this case or another one of the type discussed around here are discussed, all we read is "yeah, but why are we"wasting time" going after __, when we haven't gone after Busb?"


    No. It isn't "why are we (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:02:58 PM EST
    going after __, when we haven't gone after Bush," it's "why were we told we couldn't go after Bush, that we had to take that off the table, but it's okay to go after __."

    There's a difference, and if you don't know what it is, or don't see it, I can't help you.


    permanent war is no (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:14:44 PM EST
    state of affairs conducive to "the Open Society", free speech, information sharing, the advancement of science, general knowledge and spiritual growth..

    Norbert Weiner talked about this in-depth back when WWII was still raging. And, unless the thinking of the mental-inertia-driven types in higher government changes radically and soon, We are so f*cked.


    Too rich... (none / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:58:09 PM EST
    the proof that Wikileaks is as deadly as cancer is, of course, classified.  Top Secret.  For our own protection.  

    "But these days it's all secrecy, no privacy.  Shoot first, that's right."

    - Jagger/Richards

    Who is innocent? (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:43:35 AM EST
    If some American dude was a double-agent for the Chinese government and leaked info surfaced exposing this person, I doubt you'd call them "innocent".  Maybe the Chinese PPJ, but not you;)

    Our soldiers is a tougher call...it may sound cold but at the end of the day they too are responsible for signing their life away, which lead to them being placed in harm's way.


    Interesting story (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:47:34 AM EST
    But completely irrelevant to Assange's situation.

    One of the big networks finally (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Redbrow on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:00:48 PM EST
    takes Corey to task. CNN's Mark Nejame came out with an article today that raises serious questions about the prosecution's tactics and motives.

    He questions the reassignment of the case from Woflnger to Corey:

    Corey was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott to prosecute the case after Norman Wolfinger, the experienced state attorney for the 18th Judicial Circuit who had been in office 18 years, mysteriously announced that he was stepping down from the case, "to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest ..."

    Even though Wolfinger had one of his most experienced career prosecutors, Jim Carter, involved in the case within hours of the shooting and had scheduled a grand jury to consider the case, he unexpectedly left.

    To this day, there's no documentation or public statement about what possible conflict of interest existed. From the many I have talked to and from all that I have learned, it is my informed belief that there was no conflict of interest at all.

    He also questions her motives for cancelling the grand jury hearing:

    Was there a fear that the grand jury might consider the evidence and not indict? Sure looks like it. If that's true, then the question is whether a fair and impartial review of the evidence actually occurred. Or were the charges that Corey brought a foregone conclusion from the onset?

    I am so glad (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:03:26 PM EST
    It's good to know that the press can sometimes ask pertinant questions.

    Nejame is in no way "the press" (none / 0) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:17:57 AM EST
    He's a defense advocate hired by CNN to provide defense-oriented commentary.

    and a friend of O'Mara's (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 03:12:47 AM EST
    and he has the ear of the Zimmerman family.

    It was Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi who recommended Corey  to Scott, and AG Bondi is on record as saying she is friends with Benjamin Crump. She told Piers Morgan on March 27:

    PAM BONDI, FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, Piers, first let me tell you. I've spoken to Trayvon's parents. They are amazing, sweet, kind people. My heart goes out to them. I'm actually friends with their attorneys Ben Crump and Daryl Parks. They're wonderful lawyers who are representing them.

    She said the same thing to John King. She told Greta on Fox on March 26:

    So I met with the governor, and the governor and I decided to appoint Angela Corey, a great prosecutor from Jacksonville. She is just tough as nails. She's one of the few elected state attorneys who still actually gets in the courtroom and tries death penalty cases.

    By March 30, she revised it to (via CNN):

    PAM BONDI, FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's actually Governor Scott who appointed Angela Corey after discussing it with me. She is ethical, she's honest, she is tough as nails. She's compassionate.

    NeJame makes it sound like there's some connection between Scott and Corey when what happened according to Bondi is that Scott called her for a recommendation and she gave him Corey's name. (As AG, she told Greta she has no jurisdiction because the crime occurred in a single county.) I'm curious as to why NeJame left Bondi out of the picture, given her acknowledged personal friendship with Crump and her taking credit for selecting Corey (albeit rubber-stamped by Scott.)

    Nejame gives two examples of Corey's over-charging in the past, both of which have been widely noticed. But he makes no mention of one of her worst mistakes -- convicting an innocent man named Chad Heins for murder, who at 19 got sentenced to life. She tried the case initially. Even after a court exonerated him due to DNA evidence , her office opposed his release on bond, saying they would try him again rather than appeal. He stayed in jail a few more years, and more DNA tests  excluded him and confirmed another person committed the crime. A  fingerprint also excluded him. He's finally released, after doing 13 years, including 2 years after being exonerated, and Corey's reaction is she'd like to try him again, she still thinks he's guilty, but she'll only recharge him if she thinks she can win. The causes of Heins wrongful conviction according to the Innocence Project: the use of jailhouse snitches and unvalidated or improper forensic science.

    The state's attorney that appeared for Corey in court to oppose Heins' release on bond after his exoneration, Richard Mantei, is the same one she just added to the Zimmerman case.

    She was fired by her predecessor in 2006 for insubordination (he says so here opposing her candidacy.) He favored less reliance on jail and more on prevention. She favored greater punishment.  She ran against his preferred successor and she won -- overwhelmingly. And that's how the State of Florida to Angela Corey back. And Scott, it should be mentioned, just executed the Innocence Commission in Florida by refusing to extend its funding. It was $200k out of Florida's $70 million budget.


    I wish that... (none / 0) (#40)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 05:40:59 AM EST
    this had its own thread including NeJame's CNN opinion page.

    Would it be okiay to CCP it to one of the Zimmerman threads?  I don't know which one would be most appropriate as the Dershowitz filled long ago.

    Corey is a peice of work.


    Regarding Chad Heins (none / 0) (#41)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 05:59:05 AM EST

    In 2001, Heins wrote to the Innocence Project, which took the case with help from the Innocence Project of Florida. In 2003, along with pro bono counsel Robert Beckham of Holland & Knight, the Innocence Project filed a motion for DNA testing on skin cells collected at autopsy from underneath the victim's fingernails. She had defense wounds on her hands, meaning that biological evidence from the attacker could be under her fingernails. The DNA test results showed that male DNA under Tina's fingernails did not come from Chad or Jeremy Heins. Chad's attorneys then asked the state to conduct further testing, to compare the unknown male DNA found from the fingernail scrapings to the three hairs found on Tina's body that were shown before trial to come from an unknown person. Additional testing in 2005 showed that the profile from the hairs was consistent with the DNA from the fingernails--all belonging to a single, unknown male.

    He was not compensated by the State either.  How much injustice has to come into play for a suit to be filed on his behalf for wrongful doings by the prosecution?


    It would be a conflict of interest for (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:28:46 PM EST
    a prosecutor who does not believe he/she can, in good faith, obtain a guilty verdict, to issue a case (even if ordered to do so by a superior).    

    Although I agree with the article (none / 0) (#12)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:30:33 PM EST
    Can't CNN find a more flattering picture of Corey?Kinda piling on.

    There is absolutely no truth to the rumor ... (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:22:21 AM EST
    ... that Angela Corey is secretly channeling the ghost of Miss Balbricker of Porky's fame.

    Thank Donald (none / 0) (#24)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:33:28 AM EST
    I had forgotten that scene.

    For anyone interested; I can be found whimpering  under my deck.


    Classy. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Leopold on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 06:04:36 AM EST
    I think the fear... (none / 0) (#26)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:39:51 AM EST
    ...was that a grand jury would investigate the investigation, as well as take a closer look than they wanted taken at the role certain aspects of the SYG law played.

    Perhaps the conflict of interest was that Wolfinger could do what he was going to do or he could avoid having the governor squash him like a bug, but not both.


    Funny that... (none / 0) (#52)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:03:08 AM EST
    I think she was afraid she would get "NO BILLED."

    Then what?  What would have happened in Florida?  Do you think it is not beyond reason that some would escalate from a relatively peaceful, yet vocal, protest?  

    If I remember correctly, Sharpton was calling for just that around that time.  I would have to check dates to be certain.

    Sorry, I don't have that in my reference links.  I am willing to do a Google if needed.


    Somebody will be 11mo tomorrow (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:21:07 AM EST
    or today if you're in the east coast area.


    Good looking. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:28:14 AM EST
    Stunningly beautiful!! (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 08:27:27 AM EST
    She's a knockout (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:06:54 AM EST
    What a gorgeous girl (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by sj on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:41:36 AM EST
    aw, her so purty! (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:11:16 PM EST
    Plugs for NY theatre by old friends of mine (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:50:13 AM EST
    What I said before about two great shows, one in Woodstock, the other in the city down in the East Village by my longtime peeps. Gotta plug yer friend's shows.(link)

    As for the Broadway fare we sampled.  The general consensus among the three of us (Dadler, wife, 12 year old son) went like this: "One Man, Two Guvnors" was our fave, "Memphis" a close second, while "Wicked" showed a distant third.  Just our op.  But a hat-tip goes to Occulus on the "One Man Two Guvnors" recommendation.  It proved a truly funny night at the theatre, with some inspired audience participation (hey, Occ, did a guy in the audience claim to have a sandwich with him when James Corden asks rhetorically in character?)  And it's playing at one of the smaller Broadway theatres, The Music Box, under 900 seats, which meant the actors didn't have to be miked, which is SUCH a big deal to me.  A fantastic, old school kind of slamming doors farce with songs (but not a musical), with bawdy modern touches of hilarity and great live music by a four piece early-Beatlish sounding band.

    Now we just have to pay off the loan we took out to buy all those B-way tix.  And I'm not really joking.

    But, of course, grabbing some deli meats and pickles at Katz's with Kdog was worth the entire trip.  I'm still waiting for my suit to show up before I tell "Willy Loman'd by an orthodox tailor" on Orchard Street story.  Honestly, I still have no idea how the sonofab*th did it.


    Yes re the sandwich-- but it was a woman (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:49:38 AM EST
    in the audience.  

    The woman who was on stage earlier in the show who turned out to be in the cast--she sat 3 seats away from me. Great show. Although a Manhattan theatre  maven @ BAM did not like Guvnors. Profanity and "skimpily clad women.". Plus she preferred Goldoni!  


    Dadler delivers for oculus... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 08:03:03 AM EST
    with the theater reviews...who's better than Dadlerman?

    After ya pay off that 15 year ARM for all them tix D, y'all come back now ya hear!

    Gonna miss a good one Friday night, way out on the north fork in Amagansett...Big Sam's Funky Nation gonna take us to the mothership!  Another outfit with a trombone blowin' bandleader.


    I saw some fantastic (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 08:22:42 AM EST
    14th C. Flemish tapestries Sun.  Portuguese storming   a city in Africa. The horn players (no valves,, very long trumpets) had such puffed-out cheeks.  

    Yes re the long term debt for those theatre tickets. Good for Chase. Bad for moi. No regrets.  Except for "Peter and the Starcatchers."


    Tell me you're no longer in bed with Chase... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:27:41 AM EST
    I re-educated you better than that pal! ;)

    I decided to pay off Chase (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    w home equity line of credit- another slippery slope.  

    Debtor Nation... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:46:29 AM EST
    I think I'm the only freak without any debt...no possessions to speak of, aside from the prized ones, my imitation Roor and my books & music...but no debt.  Mikey likes it.

    No, you're not. (none / 0) (#114)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:17:22 AM EST
    I'm freaky that way too.

    That makes two! (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:19:33 AM EST
    I see my peers with debts up the wazoo, student loans, credit cards, a mortgage, a car note...and I don't see where I missing out on any fun;)

    We have plenty of (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    possessions and a nice farm, but it's long paid off.  We always pay cash for our vehicles- we always bought used cars, and finally six years ago, we did buy a new one, but paid cash for that, too.  (We drive our vehicles right into the ground before we get another one.)  We use credit cards, but I keep track and we only charge what we can pay in full every month.  Except for our farm, we've never had outstanding debt, and as I said, even the mortgage is paid off.  We saved and saved until we had plenty of money for a down payment, and then found a place we loved with an assumable mortgage held by the previous owner (not a bank) at a very reasonable rate, and paid it off in a timely fashion.  I hate to be in debt, or to pay banks any interest whatsoever.  I won't even use an out-of-network ATM, because I can't stand paying the fees.
    So, kdog, a person can have possessions without owing debts, but you have to be very careful with your money.   ;-)

    My great-uncle sold his house that way... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    no bank, just worked out a payment plan with the buyer.  

    Cutting out the leeches...priceless!


    And the couple (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:34:50 PM EST
    who owned the mortgage were really, really nice people, and we became good friends with them and their (grown) children.  The husband and wife are dead now, but we're still friends with their offspring, even though the mortgage is long paid off.  So it was doubly priceless- no banks involved, and we made some good friends, to boot.

    Take note America.... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:43:22 PM EST
    it can be done.

    If the Zorba clan can own a farm without a bank, and I can function without a bank account, the sky is the limit for a more enlightened way of doing business than the tired glorified indentured servitude model to which we've become accustomed.


    Well, it's not (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    terribly easy to do- we searched a long time for this farm.  
    I think that the best thing about it was not even that we avoided a bank, but that we were happy to have met these wonderful people.  They were retired farmers, and they gave us invaluable advice when we started to raise beef cattle.  They knew all the local repair people and craftsmen, and recommended a plumber, electrician, car mechanic, etc, that we still use.  The wife had always had a huge garden, and was expert in canning and freezing produce, and I learned a lot of what I know from her.  It was a win-win proposition all the way around.  But I fear that this way of life is getting ever more difficult to accomplish.
    However, I am proud that I've never paid a dime of interest to any bank.  And we've always used credit unions and small, regional banks (which are rapidly disappearing, unfortunately).  I know the tellers at our bank, and they know me.
    Take that, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, et al!

    I hear ya... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:29:03 PM EST
    it's not terribly easy to find the sweetest of landladys who are down with a house full of smoker tenants, and a dog, and a handshake lease either...but when you find it, it is glorious!

    In my defense, my 1st TD and equity (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:10:51 PM EST
    line of credit are through my credit union, which honored state IOUs in lieu of paychecks, which is why I became a member.  

    Oculus, you don't have to (none / 0) (#189)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:29:47 PM EST
    defend a thing- credit unions are definitely the way to go, as opposed to "the big banks," if you can do so.
    We cannot all be so lucky as to fall into a deal like we did on this farm.  And I realize that most people do, in fact, need credit at one time or another.  (Sorry, kdog, much as I love you- most people cannot realistically live as you do, or even as we do.)  But I'm a huge proponent of credit unions.
    Good for you, oculus.  Support your credit unions!

    Oh, I do. Bigtime. This house should (none / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:43:04 PM EST
    have been paid off in 2003!

    All I can say is (none / 0) (#195)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:09:42 PM EST
    Good luck to you, oculus.  Much good luck!

    Not to worry. (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:39:19 PM EST
    sounds like (none / 0) (#201)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    "contract for deed" available here in MN, anyway.

    Me, too (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:43:05 PM EST
    possessions, but no debts

    What is "Roor"? (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:50:05 AM EST
    Only... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    the very finest in glass on glass seal smokeware in all the world, classic German craftmanship.

    Out of my price range, hence the "imitation".  It was a birthday gift actually, one of the best ever.  


    you're incorrigable.. (none / 0) (#169)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:43:41 PM EST
    The guys proudly demo-ing the real (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    Roor on their website look blissfully mellow.  

    Yesterday morning, our last in the city... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:40:55 AM EST
    ...I got a wake-up call from Frank Costanza (all you fellow Seinfeld fans).  My old man guilted him into calling us, I think.  He and my dad started out acting together at the Henry Street Playhouse as teens back in the day.  He wants me to make a documentary about my dad.  I'd prefer to write a two man show for them.  Be lucky if either happens, but you never know.  

    And we'll be back soon, Dog, no doubt.  Now I just gotta figure out how to get to Vegas for a WSOP satellite in the next month.

    Peace, y'all.


    I knew the lady who got blasted... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    ...by the fire extinguisher had to be a plant.  My wife didn't believe me, but I knew you couldn't go ruining someone's outfit every night.  And the sandwich had me doubtful.  Thanks again.

    Hope your son enjoyed Manhattan. (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    He loved it (none / 0) (#183)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:13:54 PM EST
    Made sure to walk him around Columbia on our last night there.  Now he wants to go there, of course.  Not a bad goal.  We shall see...

    You'd better win big! (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:15:40 PM EST
    Fast and Furious (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:53:18 AM EST
    has now become "Executive Privilege."

    Can we now ask, "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

    no (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:26:30 AM EST
    because congress ceded everything to the presidency back during the bush regime. I find it hysterical that conservatives are whining about something that is a problem that they created.

    Still Sucks (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:40:36 AM EST
    No matter who created it and who's using it.

    Pretty hard to take these clowns seriously when the same actions are only illegal when they aren't the ones doing it.


    It sure (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:02:30 AM EST
    does. The only thing that I find at least midly amusing is how conservatives have all of a sudden done a 180 and embraced civil liberties to a certain extent when 10 years ago they were screaming that anyone who questioned Bush "hates Murica!!" and "wants the terraists to win". It's kind of rich that now almost every Republican who said that is running away from George W. Bush with everything they got.

    Conservatives are not the only ones who (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:10:51 AM EST
    have done that 180: we now have Democrats accusing other Democrats of those same kinds of things for questioning some of Obama's policies and actions.

    Interestingly, some of the most effusive praise Obama gets are in the areas of war, national security, secrecy, etc., from conservatives.

    Democrats who railed against Bush and Cheney now support and defend Obama for the same and worse; what Democrat wouldn't have been appalled and apopleptic if Bush had put out a list of his accomplishments that included all the "important" peopl he had killed?

    We are seriously down the rabbit hole...


    Agreed (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:34:01 AM EST
    Conservatives haven't done a 180 on civil (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:06:23 PM EST
    liberties. It's still the same old double standard "the rules only apply when we say they do" nonsense they've been peddling since Nixon.

    GOP pol caught at a cat house wearing a diaper, or soliciting in a public bathroom, or having congress with underage interns? GOP reaction: why won't the libs leave him alone?

    Dem pol caught lying about cheating on his wife? GOP reaction: he either resigns or we shut down DC.


    If I understand (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:39:54 AM EST
    correctly executive privilege is to allow the President to discuss issues with various people, both non-government and government, listen to advice, etc....

    Now, just what in the blue blazes was Obama talking about re Fast and Furious that he doesn't want us to know??


    And when (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:42:14 AM EST
    during a campaign, they are most critical of the previous clowns for using it.

    The m.o has always been (none / 0) (#165)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    they're for states rights and nulification when they're out of office, and for executive privilege and Federalism when they're in..

    See: the history of the (grand old) Federalist Society.

    Gotta love that "what did Obama know and when did he know it?" malarky..

    I doubt that washes even with Anne and jb..


    so (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CST on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:53:18 AM EST
    this topic made me google, and I learned something... interesting:

    "Here's a look at how many times each president since Ronald Reagan have asserted executive privilege:

    President Barack Obama: 1

    President George W. Bush: 6

    President Bill Clinton: 14

    President George H.W. Bush: 1

    President Ronald Reagan: 3"

    Honest question - wth was Clinton doing???  I don't remember any discussion of this during the Clinton years.  Does anyone know what he was using it for?  I also thought this was something GWB expanded upon, but it looks like that's not the case.


    Clinton was witch-hunted mercilessly... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by magster on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:02:07 AM EST
    once Newt took over. Even before Lewinsky, there was Whitewater, Vince Foster's suicide that wingers thought was a Clinton ordered murder, something to do with Hillary's chief of staff, just to name a few...

    With (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04:49 AM EST
    Clinton it was evoked a ton of times because of all those stupid things the GOP was doing back then. It was discussed ad naseum during the Clinton years.

    ok... I get that (none / 0) (#112)
    by CST on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    They went after him for stupid $hit.

    But it does bring up a fundamental question with the "executive privelage" problem.  One party's witch hunt is another party's hunt for justice.

    Now I think it is self-evident that I tend to agree with the people who say Republicans are the ones going after nonsense.  But it does make it hard to make a case against "executive privelage" itself.  It's more about whether you agree with how it's being used, not THAT it's being used.

    All that said, the problem is that Fast in the Furious is an abomination.  But if the thinkprogress link is right, and they are looking for information on ongoing investigations, I think it somewhat reasonable that they would want to withold that.  The question becomes whether or not that's what this is really about.  My gut doesn't trust Issa more than it doesn't trust Holder, but I can see why others would have a problem with it.


    I thought Whitewater was legit, at least ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by magster on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:20:58 AM EST
    ... for a while until it went on and on with nothing there. If memory serves, there were a couple Clinton people who had to resign or were indicted because of something stinky they were doing. Didn't his chief of staff have to resign?

    I think (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:29:29 AM EST
    the problem now is with "executive powers" in general more so than "executive privilege" itself. I see signing statements and the like as much more of a problem than EP.

    yea... (none / 0) (#125)
    by CST on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:46:33 AM EST
    although that expanded around the time of Reagan as well and has been going on for a long time.  Bush certainly took advantage of it more than anyone, by issuing about twice as many as every other president in history combined.  Obama has cut back on it significantly, although certainly not entirely.  But I can't really say that it's an expanding problem.  More like an entrenched problem.

    Nope (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    Actually, Bill Clinton had more signing statements than any president in history.

    More (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    From the link (the Library of Congress)

    Q: I've searched your website for George W. Bush's signing statements and only find about 140.  The Boston Globe said there were 750.  Where are the rest of them?

    A:  In an article published on April 30, 2006, the Globe wrote that "President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office."  In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but "has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills."

    Q: Is it true that George W. Bush has issued many more signing statements than any other president?

    A:  No, Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements.  The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued.

    Probably during the Lewinsky scandal (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    Also "Travel-Gate" (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:02:21 AM EST
    China Gate (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    But... (none / 0) (#93)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:39:56 AM EST
    can't we ask anyway?

    Perspective... (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by magster on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:59:21 AM EST
    from think progress

    Not a big fan of executive privilege generally, but Issa is one of those people who is always in the wrong.


    Sandusky defense rests without calling him. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:24:34 AM EST
    I wonder how long before the jury comes back with a guilty verdict?

    Texas grand jury takes a pass (none / 0) (#1)
    by Cylinder on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 09:45:01 PM EST
    Via CNN

    A Lavaca County, Texas, grand jury did not return an indictment against a father who killed a man he found allegedly sexually abusing his daughter, officials said Tuesday at a press conference in Hallettsville, Texas.

    Even after having this horrific event thrusted upon him, this father found his compassion intact. Good on him.

    First beat em up, then show (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 10:10:48 PM EST
    "compassion.". Nice blend of Old and New Testaments.  

    And if... (none / 0) (#14)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:01:12 AM EST
    it was your five yr old child?

    I'd let him bleed out. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:26:20 AM EST
    which this father didn't do (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:48:26 AM EST
    He's screaming at the dispatcher on the tape for an ambulance to get the guy to a hospital. (You can listen to the disturbing call here.) The attack was in progress when he pulled the guy off his daughter. Texas law allows the use of deadly force to stop a sexual attack. His pants were around his ankles, he was on top of the girl, and the DA says physical evidence confirmed an assault was in progress.

    He pulled the guy off her, beating him, and then called 911 frantic and upset he might have killed him, begging to send an ambulance so the guy doesn't die. "This guy is fixing to die on me ma'am, and I don't know what to do." The place was so rural that the father didn't know the exact address and the dispatcher couldn't figure out where he was. (It was his father's ranch.) Then the sheriff got there. The exasperated, hysterical father even told the dispatcher he going to perform CPR and  take the guy to the hospital himself.

    So this doesn't sound like a retribution killing or vigilante justice, but an unintentional killing from a beating administered while trying to stop the assault. In any event, it was a legally justifiable killing that occurred while trying to prevent a sexual assault. Right decision in my view.


    I Would Add... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:11:11 AM EST
    ...that since the guy used his fists, none of the usual 2nd Amendment characters we able to swoop in and turn it into some Constitutional battle.

    To me this was a perfect of example if what the law was written for.  But even if there wasn't a law protecting the man, surely there is no jury in any part of the country who would have found this man guilty.  Wild speculation of course.

    But this is an interesting case in had the man lived, and let's pretend this law didn't exist.  You would have an accused child rapist and the father who beat him to a pulp.  I wonder where TL would have fell.  Two defendants who would essentially be pitted against each other.

    I am not asking in any real sense, just food for thought.

    And I would add, the witness was a kid.  How brave of him to have the mindset to alert the man, I believe his dad, that something really bad was going down.  And damn, I think we would all like to think we could do what that man did, seriously hurt the person harming a loved one, but how many of us can really do that.  


    you have not paid attention (none / 0) (#75)
    by Rojas on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:55:50 AM EST
    that since the guy used his fists, none of the usual anti 2nd Amendment characters we able to swoop in and turn it into some Constitutional battle.

    Thanks Jeralyn (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:54:42 AM EST
    For bringing the human perspective to this.

    Sounds like he thought the guy needed a beatdown, some jailtime and some help (in short he still had some sort of care for him as a human being) but didn't want him to die. He was defending his child as any good parent would do.

    I concur. This was the right call.


    I thnk the grand jury (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:33:55 AM EST
    decision is just.

    In CO, may males wear hats in court?  


    We probably wouldn't oculus (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:04:34 AM EST
    but uhhh, I don't have a plan B filed in my noggin for saving the guy molesting my daughter.  If he lives, it is because I have more humanity than he does and it visits me at some point when he is vanquished.

    But there isn't supposed to be a plan B in our makeup for saving the molester where our children are concerned.  We protect our children with our lives.  If the molester survives it, it is because they got lucky.


    I hope Romney is smart enough to select (none / 0) (#4)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 10:26:43 PM EST
    Kelly Ayotte as a running mate.

    I generally despise politicians of all bents, but in my limited interaction with Mrs Ayotte I have been impressed by the fact that she seems to work for her constituents.

    Last summer I decided to bring my 11 yo. son on a  train mini vacation to DC.

    Despite the one day notice senator Ayotte's office responded to my request for Capital tours by Email within an hour.

    Senator Ayotte has no idea who I am ( I am not a political mover or financial contributor) she asked that I visit her office on that Friday and added, that if her schedule permitted it would be nice to share a cup of coffee.

    That Friday, around 10a, my son and I struggled up Capital Hill in 103 degree heat to the Senate Office building.

    Entry into the Senate Office buildings is surprisingly simple (just a metal detector then your off on your own. I noted that of the 30 or so offices we passed only two were open. One was Sen Ayotte's. Her staff sat us down offered us some water and apologized that the senator was stuck at a sub committee meeting.

    An young and well informed  Harvard student serving as a summer intern, then established our credentials,  issued passes and brought us down to the senate subway system for a fascinating custom 2+ hr tour of the Capital including the more obscure nooks and crannies. The subterranean first supreme court is right out of Kafka.

    Ayotte is an eloquent and well educated Sarah Palin.

    Better scotch the "Sarah Palin" part. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 10:46:38 PM EST
    The Supreme Court chambers (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:04:04 PM EST
    in the basement of the Capitol in D.C. were not the Court's first.  Those were in Old City Hall, Philadelphia.  Nor was the first Court the only one "right out of Kafka," I've noticed recently.  

    Before that: (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by DFLer on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:18:25 AM EST
    Originally, the Supreme Court of the United States met in a drafty room on the second floor of an old stone building called the Merchants' Exchange, at the corner of Broad and Water Streets, in New York. The ground floor, an arcade, was a stock exchange. Lectures and concerts were held upstairs. For meeting, there weren't many places to choose from. Much of the city had burned to the ground during the Revolutionary War; nevertheless, New York became the nation's capital in 1785. After George Washington was inaugurated in 1789, he appointed six Supreme Court Justices--the Constitution doesn't say how many there ought to be--but on February 1, 1790, the first day the Court was called to session, upstairs in the Exchange, only three Justices showed up and so, lacking a quorum, court was adjourned.

    Months later, when the capitol moved to Philly, the court went to City Hall.

    This article from the New Yorker by Jill Lepore, is a very interesting history of the Court.


    Fascinating. (none / 0) (#10)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:20:37 PM EST
    I misspoke. thanks for providing  details about the Philadelphia court.

    I can note that the DC court has cat paws prints embedded in the floor  and that the columns are topped with maize ( Cornthian?)  to distinguish the court as an American institution.


    Wtf? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:15:40 AM EST
    I'm sorry, but you're a huge Kelly Ayotte fan because her staff wrote a polite email and gave you water when you stopped in?  Really?

    Kelly Ayotte is a very conservative Republican in dutiful lockstep with right-wing marching orders and dumb as a box of rocks, from the times I've heard her.  You're not going to find many fans here at a decidedly left-leaning site.


    I know nothing about her (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:06:16 AM EST
    intelligence but she's been a senator since 2010 and bBefore that she was a prosecutor -- a career one it sounds like. She refused to tell Project VoteSmart her position on issues but from her votes and publicly declared statements, it says she opposes gay marriage and a path to citizenship, she supports the death penalty, and opposes a public option for health insurance.

    Other positions: She supports a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage (i.e, making it a federal ban in all states); She supports a ban on human embryonic stem cell research (Aug 2010) and federal federal funding for abortion. (May 2011). She opposes repealing DOMA. She prosecuted the first death penalty in New Hampshire in 60 years.

    She will get no support here, regardless of her intelligence, and I assume she is not dumb given her prior prosecutorial positions for the state of New Hampshire.

    She supports the war on drugs and opposes medical marijuana.

    I never heard of her before today, so thanks for prompting me to look her up. She's unacceptable and while I doubt Romney would nominate her, I'd appreciate it if you would sing her praises on a site that is open to hearing them. TalkLeft decidedly is not.


    And not that I care, but (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:41:28 AM EST
    why would a presidential candidate from Massachusetts choose a running mate from New Hampshire?

    Because (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:56:14 AM EST
    As of right now, NH is a toss-up state?  (Not that a VP pick really garners much in the way of votes.)

    make that (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:08:01 AM EST
    she opposes federal funding for abortions (I wrote the word federal twice and left out the opposes)

    Issues (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:30:52 AM EST
    ...she opposes gay marriage and a path to citizenship, she supports the death penalty, and opposes a public option for health insurance.

    At the risk of being censured, didn't our own president oppose gay marriage until very recently? Doesn't he support the death penalty?
    Wasn't his support for the public option tepid at best?

    I guess I am more "left" than Democrat.

    I assure you I do not favor a Romney presidency, but I also feel that by embraceable many right-wing points of view, Obama is making his own reelection more difficult.


    Lots of prosecutors (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:28:31 AM EST
    areprosecutors are Democrats--until the apply for the bench and the Gov. Is a Republican.

    Oops (none / 0) (#25)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:37:34 AM EST
    I think you should document the 'dumb' part. Is it the dress?

    is it bad (none / 0) (#80)
    by CST on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    that the first time I found out that commenter was from NH, my internal reaction was "ohhh, I get it now".

    I just looked up Kelly Ayotte's list of sponsored legislation.  My personal favorite:

    "S.AMDT.1068 to S.1867 To authorize lawful interrogation methods in addition to those authorized by the Army Field Manual for the collection of foreign intelligence information through interrogations."

    A regular Dick Cheney.


    I have had multiple visits for passes (none / 0) (#101)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:55:25 AM EST
    with my Representatives and Senators. Most were perfunctory. Some ( Senator Kennedy's office in particular ) expected you to kowtow and genuflect. The attention and courtesy we received was way beyond the norm.

    While appreciating the exemplary treatment I admit a nagging little voice wondering how much of this was on the public dime.

    However in deference to the site I will not mention Sen Ayotte again.

    Is Paul Ryan  verboten also?


    I think (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:48:07 AM EST
    you wuz conned.

    As I read it, she didn't meet with you.
    You got sent instead on a tour that any tourist is offered.
    And you didn't even get a cup of coffee.

    Not a great sales pitch for your candidate of choice.


    Interesting result in superior court (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:52:31 PM EST
    comment in response (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:37:44 AM EST
    deleted for consisting of reprint of right-wing propaganda. I realize the commenter was disagreeing, but it not appropriate to use this site to spread such stuff.

    The Defense Attorneys (none / 0) (#43)
    by Rojas on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:29:13 AM EST
    Austin Defense Attorney Adam Reposa

    Defense attorneys who participate in the plea bargain process, the lawyer charges, need to rethink their approach.

    "Hello, you're not doing your job; you're not being a check on the government," he said. "You're being like the other team to the Harlem Globetrotters. That's not why I went to law school. I went to law school to whip the government's ass, not do their biddings.

    Still, the judge thinks Reposa has a point about the plea bargain pipeline.

    "There's no doubt that the system is stacked against the individual accused," said Baird, "not just in Travis County, but I believe statewide and nationwide.

    "It is built on, 'We're going to run everybody through.' We take away their names and their identities and we turn everybody into numbers and we expect everybody to walk in and plead guilty to resolve their case.

    While admirable in some respects... (none / 0) (#85)
    by magster on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:23:38 AM EST
    ... the police actually often do arrest people who have committed crimes, and to expose clients who screwed up to being fully rung up by a conviction on all counts when a reasonable plea offer is available solely to satisfy the reason a lawyer went to law school is pretty bogus.

    Still not Rubio (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:57:08 AM EST
    Now "sources" are saying Pawlenty moved to the front of the VP pack along with Portman.

    Of course, no one who talks, really knows, and no one who knows is really talking.

    There is (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:28:08 AM EST
    no way Romney is going to pick Rubio if he's going to make the argument that Obama's problems are due to his lack of experience. Portman and Pawlenty are about as interesting as watching paint dry so they probably are the top picks for Romney.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:32:11 AM EST
    Some of the talking about "inexperience" was coming from Democrats with regards to Rubio.  That got shut down pretty quickly because it could come back to bite them.

    I Keep Hearing/Reading... (none / 0) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:17:53 AM EST

    Rubio has zero chance IMO after his little 'I would have came here illegally for my family' shtick.


    Romney fumbled (none / 0) (#58)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:24:20 AM EST
    on Rubio but did so in June when only a few were watching.  They are going into cya mode now as they want to give the impression he's still a top contender.  Unlikely in actuality.

    Meanwhile the buzz, the trend seems to track the approach I thought back in March they would take -- someone safe, experienced, already vetted to a considerable extent by virtue of his prior experience.  A no drama low risk candidate who will blend seamlessly into the Romney strategy of running against Obama on the economy and on the charge O just wasn't ready, wasn't up to the job.

    That means Thune, Portman, Tee Paw.

    Pawlenty is getting major buzz today, but he strikes me as too obviously RomneyLite and someone whom the far right base probably considers too moderate and unreliably soft on the issues.  But he checks a lot of boxes otherwise.


    I wonder if Sen. Thune could serve (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:36:41 PM EST
    A kind of double purpose.  From what I understand, Thune is cautious, a certified classic conservative, somewhat upper Midwest that might convey the "middle" and with the physical appearance of coming-into-his-own.

    A wild guess:  Mr Portman brings a lot with the super-duper Ohio connection. On the downside, he has baggage in the economic area with his work in the not-too-popular Republican forerunner OMB.  As for Pawlenty, I go back & forth...tho watching him on some Sunday talker this past weekend, he held up but in a hesitant kind of non-offensive way.  Back to Thune:  The initial take is that he might be used to paint the Repub ticket as close to the heartland while neither seeming too young nor too stodgy.  (I had been thinking Paul Ryan at one time--the one with the glamour boy looks & upper Midwest lineage--but, he really has a I-want-to-get-rid-of-Medicare target on him at this point.  Even the Nuns on the Bus have spoken to the Media about his Compassionless budget...something on which the Bishops also agree in a national letter, btw.)

    There's always Gov. Jan Brewer? :)


    A minor point, christinep, (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Zorba on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:17:59 PM EST
    but I have to disagree about Paul Ryan's "glamour boy looks."  He has always looked like Eddie Munster, all grown up, to me.  Always.    ;-)

    Heh--I was searching for something, Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:52:46 PM EST
    And, I do tend to agree with you on the "looks" bit; but, I could not figure out why the party had (in a way) sheltered him, giving special coverage over the years, and all that.  Maybe he has "piercing eyes?"  Yep, that must be it.  Or maybe they need someone out front for awhile and if (when) that no longer works, the blame goes to him instead of--say--Cantor? (Aside:  I would have said that he is destined to become "the goat"...but, I like goats.)

    Put Ryan next to Romney, and I don't (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:58:22 PM EST
    see how people aren't asking where Barbie and Skipper are.

    Romney will go safe (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:30:06 AM EST
    there will be no "Sarah Palin" dark horse choice (which also means, from what I've been reading, it will not be a woman).

    Again - the far right base is a consideration in a pick, but I don't see them rejecting Romney and staying home because of his choice of VP nominee. The far right base wants Obama gone and will do anything to see that happen. The people that I think are more likely to stay home are those demoralized liberals not happy with Obama, and some in the middle / independents who don't like either candidate.  But the far right is far not going to stay home come November.


    Probably (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:39:38 AM EST
    true and the funniest thing is that they are going to have to eat everything they've been espousing for years to do it.

    T-Paw had his audition on the Sunday shows (none / 0) (#205)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:13:28 PM EST
    the other day. Did quite well, I thought, considering I did not agree with even one thing he said.

    Seth Adams (none / 0) (#50)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 08:40:52 AM EST

    Looks like another potentially contreversial shooting in Florida. This one involves a Deputy.


    LInk (none / 0) (#51)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 08:42:02 AM EST
    CraZy Physics (none / 0) (#72)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:52:13 AM EST
    If you drop a slinky, the bottom will remain 'floating' until the entire slinky collapses.

    I appears to defy Newton's Laws.

    I'll give it a shot (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:57:30 AM EST
    The energy stored in the extended coils (springs) resist the collapse of the coils.

    I'd like to see a real time lapse showing movement of the bottom of the coil at the the collapse.


    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:29:22 AM EST
    ...they explain it in the video and from what I get the center of it's mass still pulls on the bottom as if it's never been freed.  IOW, both sides are retracting to the center.

    What isn't clear is if the retraction just happens to be the same rate as gravity or if it's just by chance that the slinky's retraction rate is the same.  Would a stiffer/looser slinky act the same.


    Ask Tracy (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:45:43 PM EST
    She's our slinky expert!

    It just figures you were studying a law (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:34:42 AM EST
    praying to find meaning while we hippies were busy in the bubble bath with our slinky.

    Actually I think that was (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:29:08 AM EST
    9th grade general science.

    But with your slinky???





    Did you just go perv on me? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:50:57 AM EST
    Just? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:55:44 AM EST
    It is an ongoing problem (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    If I hadn't met my husband I was going to move to D.C. and be a dominatrix.  They love it when I spank them, and I love to do it.  It's like peanut butter cups.  I'd love my job, make loads of money, DON'T EVEN HAVE TO SLEEP WITH ICKY THEM, never even have to clean my shoes...make them lick them clean, and write a book too to buy my retirement villa on.

    I had it all worked out, then I fell in love.


    Someone is making a killing spanking (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:15:11 PM EST
    them though

    Time to call in the Mythbusters.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by magster on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:30:43 AM EST
    ... Once they prove/disprove the claim, they can then blow up the slinky with C4!!!

    Romney is clearly a man of the people... (none / 0) (#92)
    by magster on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:39:55 AM EST
    I'm (none / 0) (#98)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:43:35 AM EST
    waiting for him to don a yarmulke.

    I just love when pols do that.
    It's my favorite thing.


    Zehnder's (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:51:44 AM EST
    (and it's companiion restaurant - the Bavarian Inn) are world famous and known for their fabulous chicken and noodles.

    Makes me hungry just thinking about it.


    Carles Pierce... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:51:50 AM EST
    hits another one out of the park over at Grantland, talking about the Clemens verdict.

    Après lui, of course, come the hysterics, the stalwart drug warriors who have fashioned high dudgeon into profitable careers fighting what my friend Scott Lemieux, of the Lawyers, Guns, and Money blog, calls "The War On (Some Classes of People Who Use Some) Drugs." The anti-drug enforcement complex -- which was born in the drug frenzies of the 1980s, but has its deepest roots in the racially compromised anti-drug campaigns that began in the 1920s -- found its way into sports through the current hand-wringing about PEDs, as though every drug with which sports have acclimated themselves doesn't "enhance" performance in some way. I don't know what's funnier -- the fact that it seems to have dawned suddenly on the drug warriors and their media enablers that the great unwashed masses out there simply don't give a damn about their grand crusade, or the fact that it seems to have dawned suddenly on those same people that really rich guys can afford really good lawyers.

    Who knew that Romney would have to (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:04:19 PM EST
    "fix" the Rubio nonvetting.  That is how MSNBC is reporting it today.  What is there to fix?  He didn't want Rubio.  Rubio was out.  I don't get it.  Are they afraid the base is going to be mad at him now that the cat is out of the bag?  Are they afraid Florida would be mad at him?  What the heck is going on here?  If not vetting someone can trip up their campaign, who else are they not vetting?  Let's get on that next week.

    Rubio is a red herring (part 2) (none / 0) (#132)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    Based solely on the fact that it appears they are "cleaning it up" should tell us that Rubio is not a serious contender.

    It's a misdirection and soemthing for the Beltway pundits to talk about.


    Not even vetting Rubio just adds to ... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by magster on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    the Obama claim that Romney is not sympathetic to Hispanics. Obama's timing on his immigration announcement was very good politics and makes me wonder if they were tipped off and leaked that Rubio was not even being vetted.

    I think the announcement (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:48:27 PM EST
    Was more about the fact that Rubio was about to introduce a plan similar to Obama's and the administration felt they had to get out ahead of it.  They didn't want to be caught flat-footed again like they did with Joe Biden's feelings on gay marriage.

    That makes sense... (none / 0) (#151)
    by magster on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:03:59 PM EST
    ... nonetheless, it's Romney who has been flat-footed. Obama announced this last Friday and Romney still hasn't substantively addressed this and announced that he'll make an announcement tomorrow.

    Meanwhile Obama is up 13 in a Bloomberg poll (yeah it's an outlier but probably helps the narrative that Romney is a wishy washy etch a sketch).

    The result though will be that he'll name Rubio as VP.


    Maybe because (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    As "some" believe - Romney actually agrees with the policy.

    What group (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    believes that Romney actually is symapthetic towards them? There's only two groups I can think of and that's Mormons and Rich people.

    I also understand that there's friction between Cubans and other Hispanic groups.


    A misdirection how? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:12:20 PM EST
    What am I not supposed to notice right now?  How bad Romney sucks :)?

    No (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:17:28 PM EST
    It keeps the pundits guessing.  You can't have one of the "top contenders" outed as being off the list by ABC News - of COURSE Romney still has to play this as "He's being considered."  Especially since Florida IS in play and some in the Cuban community might take offense at this early stage. Frankly, EVERYONE is being or has been "considered".

    He isn't going to announce until August, probably, but it's fun for the chattering heads to play this parlor game. Rubio is too controversial right now and not going to win him independent voters.  Maybe if Rubio does things in the next 60 days that "soften" him up for voters, he would be chosen, but this year there will be no surprise nominee.


    Rubio is not that controversial (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    He misremembered childhood stories?  Was maybe even told things inaccurate?  So was Obama, big whoop.  Rubio is not meaningfully controversial.  He just isn't white and boring.

    I didn't say (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:47:11 PM EST
    it had to be real controversy.  You think Democrats can make stuff up too?

    "can't" make stuff up (none / 0) (#147)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:47:26 PM EST
    I don't know why Romney doesn't like (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    Rubio, I'm not worried about it. I'm more worried if he likes Rubio.  Where I want my country to go, it is of benefit to me if he doesn't like Rubio. But first he wasn't vetting him and that was fine as long everyone thought he was, then he "got caught" not vetting him and now he is scrambling.  Why not just vet him, a smart candidate vets everyone who is a contender and doesn't worry that much about vetting the "wrong people" because there can be only one.  The real problem lies in NOT vetting THE ONE.  It's just another horrible egotistical leadership miscalculation via candidate Romney.  And their basic dislike for Rubio has now been exposed.

    Romney's people (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    are probably thinking that Rubio isn't going to draw in enough of the "Mormons are idolators" crowd. Plus, the name is a little overly 'ethnic', which could make the Teabaggers, for instance, leery.

    These folks want real, solid, blue-eyed, old fashioned values, Christian Americans..


    Pretty much (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:29:40 PM EST
    and Rubio saying that he would break the law does not help with the tea party fundamentalists. He'll probably go with Pawlenty who just fades into the background.

    How do you know (none / 0) (#156)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:13:41 PM EST
    he WASN'T vetting him? What does that mean?  "Vetting" someone could be something as simple as sitting down to talk with him for a short conversation,  or it could be more involved and include things liked doing background checks, running over his floor statements, his campaign, bills he's introduced, his public positions - anything.

    I think this is a non-story, especially since Rubio won't be the nominee.


    Rubio's aides said he wasn't being (none / 0) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:18:41 PM EST
    vetted.  Today Romney scrambles like a bad dog on a wood laminate floor, I'm not convinced by any of it. The only beings with grace in Romney's vicinity today are the horses he can afford to buy.  Hopefully Florida forgets

    This is good stuff, MT. Original? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    scrambles like a bad dog on a wood laminate floor

    The VP selection (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:20:20 PM EST
    generally isn't a big deal.

    This will be forgotten by Monday, let alone Election Day.


    No, what I missed (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    I'd love to really make Boehner cry :)

    With photos (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:14:21 PM EST
    I wouldn't even release them for years.  I'd have to sleep with them under my pillow every night first.

    Ok MT (none / 0) (#179)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:09:54 PM EST
    I'm laughing my ass off.