Obama administration uses emergency motion to stall release of telco lobbying records

AdultLink

AdultLink

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/judge-brushes-government-delay-attempts-clearing-w

Telco and cableco lobbying records are being stalled in emergency measures by the obama administration even though a judge ordered the lobbying records for the telcos to get off the hook due to the warrentless wiretapping program.

If the democrats were so innocent and the republicans so guilty, they could release to lobbying records and easily nail them. Why oh why would they be afraid of releasing? Perhaps they themselves are not so innocent?

This is brought to you by the same guy who won a peace prize. Now watch as people who bash me scramble to make excuses.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']
This is brought to you by the same guy who won a peace prize. Now watch as people who bash me scramble to make excuses.[/QUOTE]

You don't know what a veto is, and you don't know the NPP is awarded and not campaigned for. Him winning it has nothing to do with political anything, and ramrodding it down someone's throat as such makes little sense. And what's even crazier is that it seems most people seem to agree he hasn't earned it any more than lots of other nominees.

And then you expect people to enter into a baited argument, chiding us for not responding in sixteen minutes after you make it? Because, hey, no one has anything else to do?

I'm just curious how you expect there to be discourse when you clearly have no intentions of allowing it.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']He used the word veto instead of saying they voted it down. fucking get over it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I really hate having to call out people for confusing a power of the president versus Congress.

It's like when I go into a butcher shop and complain that they don't have any curtains there, and then act like such a little bitch when the guy understandably calls me stupid for expecting such.
 
[quote name='Strell']It's like when I go into a butcher shop and complain that they don't have any curtains there,[/QUOTE]

Meat curtains? Yup, you're really in the wrong shop.
 
[quote name='Strell']You don't know what a veto is, and you don't know the NPP is awarded and not campaigned for. Him winning it has nothing to do with political anything, and ramrodding it down someone's throat as such makes little sense. And what's even crazier is that it seems most people seem to agree he hasn't earned it any more than lots of other nominees.

And then you expect people to enter into a baited argument, chiding us for not responding in sixteen minutes after you make it? Because, hey, no one has anything else to do?

I'm just curious how you expect there to be discourse when you clearly have no intentions of allowing it.[/QUOTE]

No, I wasn't expecting you to race over to post. I was doing it out of COURTESY. I figured, that for a bunch of people looking to bash somebody and make a big deal over what he says, and try to make him look like an idiot, you'd be racing over to make sure you don't prove him right.

You wouldn't want to show this forum what a bunch of hypocritical idiots you are after trying so hard to hurl shit at me eh?
 
[quote name='AdultLink']No, I wasn't expecting you to race over to post. I was doing it out of COURTESY. I figured, that for a bunch of people looking to bash somebody and make a big deal over what he says, and try to make him look like an idiot, you'd be racing over to make sure you don't prove him right.

You wouldn't want to show this forum what a bunch of hypocritical idiots you are after trying so hard to hurl shit at me eh?[/QUOTE]

So you're admitting you have no interest in discussion, and that this is just a bait thread.

Cool story.

[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Meat curtains? Yup, you're really in the wrong shop.[/QUOTE]

They had signs advertising that they would "tenderize your tube steak." I was sorely disappointed.
 
[quote name='Strell']So you're admitting you have no interest in discussion, and that this is just a bait thread.

Cool story.



They had signs advertising that they would "tenderize your tube steak." I was sorely disappointed.[/QUOTE]

Well at least you have the ability to see the obvious.

But the 'bait' comes without an answer, not with. You guys make topics acting like democrats are innocent and republicans are evil, and you attack me when I say democrats are also evil. I've said my points no matter what you think of them, but the simple fact is, avoiding topics like this will only prove you guys to be a bunch of liberal fanboys.
 
I love trash talking muckraking, vapid jerks, because I am a muckraking, vapid jerk. It's why I love perdition troy. You're not nearly partisan enough to be entertaining like troy, but your shit is so weak that it's not even interesting enough to click the link, much less hit reply. Get trollier, get a cognizant argument that's worth talking about, or GTFO. We don't need another pretend non-partisan conservative partisan, thanks. We've already got thrustbucket.

They asked for a 30 day stay to decide the proper legal course of action. There is nothing unreasonable about that. Prudence and due diligence require it. So what's the actual problem again?

Props to Strell for even trying.

Also, he said meat curtains. Uh huh huh huh huh huh.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I love trash talking muckraking, vapid jerks, because I am a muckraking, vapid jerk. It's why I love perdition troy. You're not nearly partisan enough to be entertaining like troy, but your shit is so weak that it's not even interesting enough to click the link, much less hit reply. Get trollier, get a cognizant argument that's worth talking about, or GTFO. We don't need another pretend non-partisan conservative partisan, thanks. We've already got thrustbucket.

They asked for a 30 day stay to decide the proper legal course of action. There is nothing unreasonable about that. Prudence and due diligence require it. So what's the actual problem again?

Props to Strell for even trying.

Also, he said meat curtains. Uh huh huh huh huh huh.[/QUOTE]

What a bullshit response. Judges are the ones who decide the proper legal course of action. I thought I was the one who needs to learn politics and the government?

The judge ordered the files opened, that's all the legal response you need to have the files opened to the public. Somebody in the white house doesn't want them opened to the public.

Wonder why.

What other 'legal response' do you need? Except maybe forged documents? Because lets again realize that this is an order to release lobbying data under the FOIA, so this would show who lobbied what politicians to get immunity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay... So let me get this straight.

What was the biggest issue for liberals, the patroit act, next to the iraq war, is now a LESSER ISSUE then REPUBLICANS NOT VOTING ON RAPE BILLS?????

You guys cried and cried about this when Bush was in office. Now a fellow lib is in office, the records showing who LOBBIED THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES, THE GUYS WHO WERE GIVING IMMUNITY TO SPY ON YOU, ARE TRYING TO BE FREED, AND IT'S NOT IMPORTANT?

And you tell me I have a weak argument? Do you guys normally completely switch ideas the moment somebody becomes president?
 
[quote name='AdultLink']What a bullshit response. Judges are the ones who decide the proper legal course of action.[/quote]
Judges can only act based on the information presented. Nothing more. If a lawyer chooses not to present the most obvious legal course of action, the judge cannot weight it (assuming we aren't going with a jury). It would probably be an issue under appeal though. In this instance, the client is deciding whether to pursue an appeal. Its lawyers have moved to preserve the ability to exercise appeal. That's all that's happened.
I thought I was the one who needs to learn politics and the government?
Click to expand...
Yup.
The judge ordered the files opened, that's all the legal response you need to have the files opened to the public. Somebody in the white house doesn't want them opened to the public.

Wonder why.
Click to expand...
I'll say this slowly so you get it. Once they release, they cannot unrelease. Therefore, ANY ISSUES THEY MAY HAVE, ANY ISSUE AT ALL INVOLVED IN ANY STEP OF THIS PROCESS, must be appealed now. The government hasn't even filed the ACTUAL appeal.
What other 'legal response' do you need? Except maybe forged documents? Because lets again realize that this is an order to release lobbying data under the FOIA, so this would show who lobbied what politicians to get immunity.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're an expert on FOIA, so I'm not going to rehash the hundred reasons FOIA requests can get out of control or create liability for the governmental agency. You know all that. I'm sure you've also actually read the emergency request for stay, the response, and the response to the response.

I don't see anything unusual about it. SG Kagan looks like she wants to talk to the stakeholders about an appeal. The EFF's (who I've donated to in the past and love their mission) response is ... unfriendly at best in a situation that doesn't really call for it. They're almost foolishly unfriendly, and the government's response calls them out and makes them look bad for it.

But again, you know all this (you've just chosen to talk about nothing but what was in the synopsis, right?). So what's the problem? How is this a major political thing involving the Illuminati and the Sons of the Confederacy again?

You see what I did there? I minimized you because it's clear that you don't have a damned clue what you're actually talking about. Hurry now, go a read the opinion and filings and try to throw together a decent response. I didn't even have to hide behind calling you a liberal or conservative. I'm not calling out the label you hide behind. I'm calling you out.
What was the biggest issue for liberals, the patroit act, next to the iraq war, is now a LESSER ISSUE then REPUBLICANS NOT VOTING ON RAPE BILLS?????
Click to expand...
OOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Me! Pick me! I'm a "liberal"!!!!!

There is nuance to the law. Things like due diligence. Responsibility to one's client. Your complete disregard for that in favor of making it about the politics that you swear you hate but can't get back to fast enough makes you... not interesting.

My problem is that I enjoy sadistic shit like ripping wings off of flies.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Okay... So let me get this straight.

What was the biggest issue for liberals, the patroit act, next to the iraq war, is now a LESSER ISSUE then REPUBLICANS NOT VOTING ON RAPE BILLS?????

You guys cried and cried about this when Bush was in office. Now a fellow lib is in office, the records showing who LOBBIED THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES, THE GUYS WHO WERE GIVING IMMUNITY TO SPY ON YOU, ARE TRYING TO BE FREED, AND IT'S NOT IMPORTANT?

And you tell me I have a weak argument? Do you guys normally completely switch ideas the moment somebody becomes president?[/QUOTE]

Tsk, tsk. How many time do I have to tell you AL. It doesn't matter because Obama's INTENTIONS are noble. Or is that Nobel ?

He's a real man of the people and how dare you suggest that he's in the pocket of special intersts. Republican is the party of special interest. Gosh, you;re so stupid not to know that. Start thinking intellectually for god's sake.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Judges can only act based on the information presented. Nothing more. If a lawyer chooses not to present the most obvious legal course of action, the judge cannot weight it (assuming we aren't going with a jury). It would probably be an issue under appeal though. In this instance, the client is deciding whether to pursue an appeal. Its lawyers have moved to preserve the ability to exercise appeal. That's all that's happened.[/Quote]

Nice walk around the question. So according to you, without proof, somebody left something out of this case and you need to cover Obama's ass?

Yup.
Click to expand...

In law, an appeal is a process for requesting a formal change to an official decision.

If a judge made the rule, it's an official decision, and all an appeal is is asking for another look. You need to study law more before making obtuse remarks.

I'll say this slowly so you get it. Once they release, they cannot unrelease. Therefore, ANY ISSUES THEY MAY HAVE, ANY ISSUE AT ALL INVOLVED IN ANY STEP OF THIS PROCESS, must be appealed now. The government hasn't even filed the ACTUAL appeal.
Click to expand...

And what issue would politicians have with releasing documents showing who bribed which politician to become immune to lawsuit? Oh wait...

I'm sure you're an expert on FOIA, so I'm not going to rehash the hundred reasons FOIA requests can get out of control or create liability for the governmental agency. You know all that. I'm sure you've also actually read the emergency request for stay, the response, and the response to the response.

I don't see anything unusual about it. SG Kagan looks like she wants to talk to the stakeholders about an appeal. The EFF's (who I've donated to in the past and love their mission) response is ... unfriendly at best in a situation that doesn't really call for it. They're almost foolishly unfriendly, and the government's response calls them out and makes them look bad for it.

But again, you know all this (you've just chosen to talk about nothing but what was in the synopsis, right?). So what's the problem? How is this a major political thing involving the Illuminati and the Sons of the Confederacy again?

You see what I did there? I minimized you because it's clear that you don't have a damned clue what you're actually talking about. Hurry now, go a read the opinion and filings and try to throw together a decent response. I didn't even have to hide behind calling you a liberal or conservative. I'm not calling out the label you hide behind. I'm calling you out.
Click to expand...

No matter how you try to sugar coat or twist the topic at hand, the judge ordered documents showing what politicians took bribes from what telco lobbyist so they can gain immunity, and all the horse shit you throw won't change that.

I also find it funny that for a person who thinks I need lessons on the court system of the US, your method of arguments lies going into conspiracy theories and making excuses for what a federal judge mandated must be done.

OOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Me! Pick me! I'm a "liberal"!!!!!

There is nuance to the law. Things like due diligence. Responsibility to one's client. Your complete disregard for that in favor of making it about the politics that you swear you hate but can't get back to fast enough makes you... not interesting.

My problem is that I enjoy sadistic shit like ripping wings off of flies.
Click to expand...

Why are you so quick to declare a mistrial and demand due diligence on things that were universally hated, NOT TO MENTION ILLEGAL, for 7 years...?

And esp. after an OFFICIAL DECISION was made by a FEDERAL JUDGE to release the documents?
 
You know, this is funny. speedracer, since you think their were things left out of hearings you were never at, and you need to make excuses for this administration, I'd like to see your certifications as a federal judge. Because the federal judge heard all the sides and ruled. I'd also like to see evidence that you appeared at the hearings for the ruling in question. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about things you don't know.

And if you say that I should talk, I will remind you that the us court system was made so that the judge makes the rules of the law. A decision by a judge is an official decision and can only be reversed by another official decision.

Therefore, if a judge has made an official decision, the public should treat it as an official decision.

http://www.uscourts.gov/faq.html

If you persist, I will gladly show you where those rules are shown.
 
No matter who has come in to flame me, nobody has bothered to explain why their lord Obama, and the democrats who constantly have bitter fights with republicans, would feel the need to try to block a ruling releasing court documents showing who paid what politician to receive immunity.

Afterall, if the democrats were innocent, they would put those bad republicans away for a generation if people found out the democrats were innocent and the republicans were taking bribes for telco immunity. What not do it? I wonder.

Just think about it, those republicans going to jail and nothing but democrats in office! If what you guys believe is true, that the republicans solely ruined the economy, the republicans are the special interest groups, the republicans are killing us all, why wouldn't you want their dirty deeds to be shown to light?

Either you guys know your full of shit, or you are so stupid you believe Obama is doing something for the republicans. Oh wait, he's a peace prize winner.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Nice walk around the question. So according to you, without proof, somebody left something out of this case and you need to cover Obama's ass?[/quote]
No. That's not what I'm saying. I'll say it one more time, one last time to get it through to you. You won't get it like you didn't the other two times, but someday when you act like a grown up, you'll appreciate it.

Due diligence requires this of competent representation.
In law, an appeal is a process for requesting a formal change to an official decision.

If a judge made the rule, it's an official decision, and all an appeal is is asking for another look. You need to study law more before making obtuse remarks.
Click to expand...
Yes. We agree! But you're simplifying again. The reason for an appeal can run the gamet. Not to sound like a broken record, but IT IS REQUIRED OF A COMPETENT LAWYER TO DO DUE DILIGENCE before deciding on an appeal. You saw the turnaround on this was quick. A reasonable person (haha) would find that way. They've asked for time to think about it. That's it.
And what issue would politicians have with releasing documents showing who bribed which politician to become immune to lawsuit? Oh wait...
Click to expand...
Where is the political interference? Don't say it, show me. This will fully instruct that you don't understand what you're talking about. Please show me. I'm dying for you to show me.
No matter how you try to sugar coat or twist the topic at hand, the judge ordered documents showing what politicians took bribes from what telco lobbyist so they can gain immunity, and all the horse shit you throw won't change that.
Click to expand...
*facepalm*

Psst. I'm actually rooting for the EFF. I don't think I've ever rooted against them. I heart them like I heart few organizations.

I also find it funny that for a person who thinks I need lessons on the court system of the US, your method of arguments lies going into conspiracy theories and making excuses for what a federal judge mandated must be done.
Click to expand...
You don't seem interested in the nuance of CivPro, and I don't care enough to teach you.

Why are you so quick to declare a mistrial and demand due diligence on things that were universally hated, NOT TO MENTION ILLEGAL, for 7 years...?
Click to expand...
lolwut
And esp. after an OFFICIAL DECISION was made by a FEDERAL JUDGE to release the documents?
Click to expand...
lol. Someone go tell the district douches that they can release their opinions in all caps because they've just been promoted to sub-deities.
[quote name='AdultLink']You know, this is funny. speedracer, since you think their were things left out of hearings you were never at, and you need to make excuses for this administration, I'd like to see your certifications as a federal judge. Because the federal judge heard all the sides and ruled. I'd also like to see evidence that you appeared at the hearings for the ruling in question. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about things you don't know.[/quote]
Me? I'm just an avatar.
 
This could have gone so much better.

For example ...

Hey! Look at what Mr. Transparency's goons are doing right now.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/judge-brushes-government-delay-attempts-clearing-w

See. Simple and to the point.

Then, a response to speedracer's point of being unable to unrelease documents would be a vast goldmine waiting to be stripmined.

For example, nu uh. The government can hide what it has revealed.

http://www.slate.com/id/2136480/

Then, the possibility of government agency incurring liability while demanding telcos and cablecos to violate probably everybody's 4th Amendment could be met the staple sarcastic response of the 80s, "Gee. You think so?"

And I'm happy I looked up the urban dictionary definition of meat curtains.

There is potential for a riproaring fight here. Now, stay with this story for another month and post what the next move the Oministration will use? Pictures of the judge with naked boys? Midseason schedule replacement on the MSM? Accepting consequences to illegal actions?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']This could have gone so much better.

For example ...

Hey! Look at what Mr. Transparency's goons are doing right now.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/judge-brushes-government-delay-attempts-clearing-w

See. Simple and to the point.[/quote]
And answered. But since we're here can I ask an honest question: What is it with the faux starry eyed ultra-naivety being shown on Obama's promises? Reasonable people realize what you want and what happens is two different things. Priorities change. But an SG decides they want longer than 5 days to decide whether or not to appeal and suddenly you guys start feigning fanboyism (hope! change! Mr. Transparency!) to make a point. I don't get it. Sure, it plays well here with the bottom of the barrel trash (bmulligan, I choose you!), but some of you should do better.

Then, a response to speedracer's point of being unable to unrelease documents would be a vast goldmine waiting to be stripmined.

For example, nu uh. The government can hide what it has revealed.
Click to expand...
Let them decide what they're going to do. Let them make the mistake of overstepping before you accuse them. I realize we're all been living under the rock of stupid that was the Bush admin for eight years and so we just assume they're going to give us the 40lb. box of rape every single time, but maybe this once we should wait until they actually fuck us before we complain about being fucked. That's all I'm saying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']And answered. But since we're here can I ask an honest question: What is it with the faux starry eyed ultra-naivety being shown on Obama's promises? Reasonable people realize what you want and what happens is two different things. Priorities change. But an SG decides they want longer than 5 days to decide whether or not to appeal and suddenly you guys start feigning fanboyism (hope! change! Mr. Transparency!) to make a point. I don't get it. Sure, it plays well here with the bottom of the barrel trash (bmulligan, I choose you!), but some of you should do better. [/QUOTE]

Some of O's promises were simple. For example, Gitmo. There are less than 300 detainees there and the US prison system houses 3 million people. How hard is it to close and filter everybody to other prisons? How hard is it to accept there is no proof of any wrongdoing of almost everybody at Gitmo and let them go? For a just and moral society, tomorrow by dawn. For the US, around ten months and counting.

[quote name='speedracer'] Let them decide what they're going to do. Let them make the mistake of overstepping before you accuse them. I realize we're all been living under the rock of stupid that was the Bush admin for eight years and so we just assume they're going to give us the 40lb. box of rape every single time, but maybe this once we should wait until they actually fuck us before we complain about being fucked. That's all I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. The fall season has been very underwhelming and I might be able to focus on this in 30 days. After that, I'm putting the present on the scale and showing you it weighs 40 pounds.
 
First of all, settle down AdultLink.

Second of all, the DOJ is part of the executive branch, and the executive branch is headed by President Obama. That doesn't mean Obama should micromanage DOJ decisions, also doesn't mean Obama couldn't do more about this if he really wanted to.

Way I read it, the DOJ (executive branch) is asking for more time to review the issue, which if granted, would go back to Congress (legislative branch).

For the record, I think the executive branch already has enough powers to do their job. How about focusing less on getting more powers to monitor every facet of our lives, and more on catching bad guys. Do you agree with that AdultLink?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Some of O's promises were simple. For example, Gitmo. There are less than 300 detainees there and the US prison system houses 3 million people. How hard is it to close and filter everybody to other prisons? How hard is it to accept there is no proof of any wrongdoing of almost everybody at Gitmo and let them go? For a just and moral society, tomorrow by dawn. For the US, around ten months and counting.[/QUOTE]

Except for it really isn't that simple, and it really is that hard. Congress has involved itself in this issue, rightly or wrongly, and has forbidden the administration from using money to move detainees from Guantanamo to the United States (nobody has a problem with prisoners being repatriated). Just about every congressman, except a few like Jim Moron (sorry, Moran) from Northern Virginia, do not want to be seen as bringing terrorists even into our prisons, so they're not going to allow it. Obama can't simply wave his hand and make this happen.
 
yeah fatherofcaitlyn, show the proof that there is no proof! cmon!

by the way glenn beck still has to disprove the rape/murder of a girl in 1990, right?
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']Do you have a link for that?[/QUOTE]

http://washingtonindependent.com/59...or-gitmo-prisoner-score-is-detainees-30-u-s-7

Not what I was looking for, but that's 30 out of 37 innocent.

I probably won't keep digging because I'm lazy.

EDIT: http://www.alarabiya.net/views/2009/08/02/80570.html Well, this worst of the worst may not have had pubes when captured.

EDIT 2: Here is something that will piss off Mr. Vermin. http://www.melaniemorgan.com/archiv...in-7-gitmo-prisoners-return-to-terrorism.html After torturing somebody for 1 in 7 years, only 14% return to terrorists. By contrast, http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm a regular criminal is three or four time more likely to return to criminal activity. Perhaps we're not torturing enough in prison.
 
Thanks. I'll read those when I have time. But I also consider the fact that some of the facts and details may be classified. I don't automatically assume that we randomly rounded up people who just happen to be innocent. In fact, if that were the case I am sure there would be many more people caught up in the sweeps if the net were cast as wide and indiscriminately as detractors would have us believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top