I concur. To expand on #1: For their base, they always knew the WH is evil, they'll never even hear from their news sources that anything was inaccurate. For the mainstream, there were a couple days of "Seekrit emails show WH was interfering for politcal reasons!" which will now transition to "Republicans didn't release exact quotes of email, but is the gist really different? Views vary." For liberals, we'll go on blogs and complain about it to each other.
And now, of course, we have the latest scandal showing that Obama hates the troops. Why even mention this shit other than to feed your narrative?
2 is right.
If you've been following this story, you know nothing could be less relevant than the facts.
It's like you could write a whole book about Republican lies and liars.
I know. It's no different than the rest of the Lie Blatantly, Boldly playbook. I just had one of those surreal, grounded anthropologist moments where you calmly think "you know, by reasonable standards that's completely batty!"
it doesn't matter because the emails themselves don't really matter. the narrative that the WH is in trouble and that Obama is floundering is firmly established.
that the GOP is massaging the messaging to the message-hungry media about how the various agencies massaged their messages about a State Department front for a CIA job in a backwater consulate in a dusty country which was attacked by as-of-yet unidentified marauders for motives we can only guess at and about which someone named Susan Rice did not say enough of the magic words at the time but Obama did or maybe didn't because you know he hates America anyway and it this all goes to prove that the whole thing was a 9/11 cover-up just before the election because CULTURE OF INTIMIDATION, etc, etc, zzzzz....
9: Yup. Whitewater wasn't anything at all until the investigation turned up Lewinsky. Sensible people didn't think Lewinsky much mattered, either, but that situation got Clinton impeached.
The reality-based can naively overstate the importance of factuality.
After the revolution we get rid of the one person = one vote thing, right?
PhDs get 10 votes, PhDs with AR-15s get 15, MS/MA get 7, Journalism majors get -3, and so on. I expect lots of haggling over the details but the basics are there.
Wrong, after the revolution I am in charge.
The worst thing about the aspect of Benghazi that managed to catch hold is that it's the piece about what to say on a fucking TV show, and will now further enlarge the gulf between the importance with which political gasbags view themselves and the amount they actually matter to 99.98% of the country. "Obama's gonna PAY for the argument that some people in his departments had about what someone else who works for him was going to say on MY SHOW BITCHES!"
I saw some poll that 80% of Republicans said that Benghazi was the worst scandal in U.S. history, and also that only 20% of them could identify the country in which Benghazi is located.
12: No, your biceps are probably too large. Us skinny but cooperative guys are gonna do all the big bicep people in as a prophy measure.
This is going to set up exactly the same dynamic I hated about the Clinton scandals, where I'm passionately defending the guy against unjust attacks despite the fact that I'm really unhappy with him politically. I hated that in the 90's, having to explain that I didn't think Whitewater and the rest were bullshit because I was a mindless Clinton-worshipper, I thought they were bullshit because they were bullshit.
14.
39% of the voters who think B* is the biggest scandal in US history don't know which country it's in.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_51313.pdf
according to the same poll, 36% of Romney voters and 47% of Obama voters can't place it.
17: How dare you introduce facts! My version was better!
Even the IRS scandal seems fairly trivial to me. There's actually something there at root, but it's nowhere near as bad as it seems at first glance.
I'd be tempted to give half-credit for Liberia on the grounds that maybe they had the right country in mind but just can't spell.
The real scandal of Benghazi is the bad planning and protection for the diplomats (which was foreseen; the State Department has been complaining about inadequate security funding for a while), and even more what it shows about how poorly thought out the whole Libya intervention was. I can't believe politicians are arguing about fucking talking points. It just shows how the two-party hegemony is so good at generating distractions to vent off frustration about the real problems (which are usually the result of stuff that is actually within the two-party consensus in some way).
19: Yeah, I'm institutionally sympathetic to bureaucrats, but the IRS scandal doesn't seem like much to me -- they used a set of timely political keywords to search for c(4)s that might have an electoral politics rather than a social-welfare emphasis, at a time when an electoral-politics focused movement was setting up a whole lot of them. I'm not seeing any allegations that any organization was wrongly denied c(4) status.
On "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" grounds, they shouldn't have done the searches unless they could have come up with an artificially (given that there wasn't, AFAIK, a left-wing flood of new c(4)s identifiable with a set of keywords) ideologically balanced list, but it really doesn't seem like much to me.
Even the IRS scandal seems fairly trivial to me.
It's worse than trivial. It's fucking moronic. Tea Party groups weren't targeted for being conservative; they were targeted for being groups dedicated to funding primary challenges to Republican incumbents, which disqualifies you from (c)4 status. The only scandal is that groups like Organizing for America and Crossroads GPS *did* get the designation. This is seriously driving me up a wall.
how poorly thought out the whole Libya intervention was
Ayup.
But, then there is the 3rd scandal the AP leak investigation. Anybody inclined to defend Obama on that?
In the very very limited sense that it doesn't look as if they've done anything illegal, considering the shambles they and the prior administration have made of the law (and I really haven't paid enough attention, so if you want to talk me out of this I'm willing to listen). I mean, I hate it, but the people making a fuss now are largely the same people who've been demanding the national security panopticon all along, so it's kind of bullshit from them.
So, yes I think ill of the administration for it, but I think framing it as a 'scandal' is a little peculiar.
I don't even think the AP "scandal" has anything to do with anything done by this administration (or the last) to national security law. There's no media shield privilege in federal courts, and they were trying to investigate a leak of classified information. So they subpoenaed records between the reporters who obtained the leaked information and the potential leakee, after complying with the (special, administratively imposed) rules for sending subpoenas to the press. Nothing wrong with that or even remotely illegal.
But, then there is the 3rd scandal the AP leak investigation. Anybody inclined to defend Obama on that?
Sorry, that was stupidly written. The subpoena was to the AP for records that could help identify the leaker.
Listen to Marcy Wheeler, not Halford, on the AP thing. Or this guy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/17/obama_s_plumbers?page=full.
The AP thing is beyond appalling. I'm angry enough that my solution has been a) ignore all news stories, so as not to explode my blood pressure), and b) try to decide whether a donation to EPIC, EFF, or some more directly press-freedom-related organization is best. Suggestions welcome.
The IRS stuff is disgusting and they shouldn't have done it and it infuriates me as a taxpayer, especially since there are plenty of legitimately sleazy* pseudo-nonprofits out there for them to investigate.
*I swear this makes sense in context.
Whitewater wasn't anything at all until the investigation turned up Lewinsky. Sensible people didn't think Lewinsky much mattered, either, but that situation got Clinton impeached.
I was forced to listen to 15 seconds of Ann Curry on ABC yesterday while on hold with a radio station and in that time she managed to claim that "Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had the Lewinsky scandal, George Bush had two wars and the economy tanking," so second terms are haaaaard for presidents.
One of these things is not like the others. And I say that as someone who thought Lewinsky was a clear-cut case of abuse of power on Clinton's part.
Can anyone guess why I am un-psyched about the administration eavesdropping on 100 AP reporters for two months, including the HOME PHONES of the two guys who wrote this story? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/9/ap-cia-grave-mistakes-then-promotions/?page=all . After having Patrick Fitzgerald criminally investigate & eavesdrop on a friend of mine...One thing to know "oh ha ha we're probably under surveillance"; another thing to know: oh hey, you are DEFINITELY under surveillance, and you, and you, and you.
14/17: This. To add more anecdata, my conservative father was complaining that "Hilary Clinton said 'who cares about Bosnia'" recently. I was indeed wondering why somebody would bring up that shot-at-by-snipers-on-the-tarmac thing.
It might be legal, though, but that's because the third party doctrine is crazy, laws governing national security letters, etc.
The IRS stuff is disgusting and they shouldn't have done it and it infuriates me as a taxpayer, especially since there are plenty of legitimately sleazy* pseudo-nonprofits out there for them to investigate.
Seriously, what's disgusting? Say that there had been a wave of "Occupy" themed c(4)s, named things like "Occupy [placename]" or "99% Strikes Back!", and the IRS had searched applications for 'Tea Party' and for 'Occupy' to scrutinize for a focus on electoral politics. Would that have made it okay -- that is, are you disgusted by the unbalanced partisan nature of the search? -- or is there something else I'm missing?
Oh, boo hoo hoo. If you want to report a story where you know you're receiving information that's the fruit of a crime, the government is entitled (in federal court) to look into the source of the information, and has been forever. The only issue here is the amount of pre-subpoena negotiation with the AP, which was apparently less than usual (because the perceived security risk was greater). There's no evidence of actual government interference with the press. Any crime reporter has known this forever but apparently we're all now supposed to believe that a shield law somehow existed that has never actually existed.
I don't plan on actually reading any of these stories, but I think I'll side with Katherine on the AP-outrage thing.
34: Let me stipulate that I know very little about IRS procedures and even less about 501c3 vs 501c4 legal distinctions. Nevertheless, I have had contact with quite a number of supposed nonprofits that are skating very close to the line or are in fact deserving of having their nonprofit status yanked.
They are all over the political spectrum -- left, right, McManusy, etc. What they have in common is petty (or not-so-petty) corruption and lack of accountability.
Given this reality, I have to assume that any IRS jurisdiction in the country has the same general assortment of violators. So I think it is inexcusable for IRS investigators to use idiotically partisan criteria to focus their search.
Nothing in my experience leads me to believe that Tea Party groups are any greater offenders than anyone else (in practice, I mean -- I grant you that in rhetoric they're pretty far out there), and the point of being a civil servant in public service is that you are supposed to not only avoid doing improper or illegal things, but also not sabotage the integrity of your agency by doing things that appear to be improper.
The soundbite on this is just awful, and deservedly so.
Given this reality, I have to assume that any IRS jurisdiction in the country has the same general assortment of violators. So I think it is inexcusable for IRS investigators to use idiotically partisan criteria to focus their search.
It'd be inexcusable if that were the only searching they were doing -- that is, if they didn't take a second look at any organization that didn't pop up after the 'tea party' search. That seems implausible, though, and I haven't seen allegations to that effect.
Other than that, though, it's the "Caesar's wife" problem you're worried about -- not so much that it's substantive wrongdoing, but that the appearance of partisanship is wrong in itself? Because, yes, I agree generally, I just wouldn't get anywhere close to 'disgusting' on that basis.
See, I can't get exercised about the IRS actually doing its job, just because it has done a poor job in the past and an avalanche of groups (post Citizens United and in the run-up to an election) with similar names were rushing in to abuse the law too.
These will all blow over, I predict, when the next shiny object comes along.
Isn't the AP thing a smokescreen to protect the actual leaker (Brennan)? I suppose that's what the link says . . .
I've not read the IRS OIG report. Ought to before I make my determination.
These will all blow over, I predict, when the next shiny object comes along.
Speaking of which, I honestly don't understand this.
Toomey Demands Answers On HHS Decision To Solicit Donations "This appears at best to be an inherent conflict of interest . . . at worst a potentially illegal augmentation of appropriation."
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) is seeking answers following press reports indicating Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicited funds from health care executives to assist with the implementation of the president's health law.
Writing with Senate Finance Committee Republicans, Sen. Toomey has asked for a top-down review of the department's decision, which has raised a variety of legal questions given that federal regulations prohibit the augmentation of congressional appropriations.
Is the issue that it was a Cabinet secretary asking for money that would flow through the government? Because otherwise, isn't it basically what has been happening with S-CHIP programs for a decade now? I feel like I see constant health-insurance company ads to boost enrollment. I don't really understand.
Only 1/3 of the organizations that received requests for more information were conservative, so they obviously had some other criteria, although it might not have been as blanket as "Tea Party" but that's because conservatives are dumbasses (via Apo and others at FB.) Might as well call themselves "The nonprofit tax exempt committee to elect Republicans in violation of tax laws" and complain when you get flagged.
Getting a politician on oath in a politically motivated fishing expedition is what got Clinton impeached.
The IRS thing started in the same month that some tea party type kook flew a plane into a Texas IRS building killing an IRS agent.
The Benghazi thing is one of those things where I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, or I've had a stroke and I'm suffering from aphasia. The explanations sound like words, but they don't seem to form sentences I can understand.
So basically, according to the IG report, a substantial portion of the delay in processing the improperly selected cases came about because they were sent for review to a team consisting of one guy, who then had to wait more than a year for help on them from the main office.And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why people hate the government.
Yes, the government is loathsome because it has a limited number of employees who have limited capacity for getting stuff done. I don't work with the IRS, but I work with our state tax department and they're doing a lot of triage because they don't have the people to do everything they need to. Honestly.
And these applications really weren't urgent AFAICT -- they were for certification as a c(4), but there was no bar against going ahead and filing as one without the certification; you just weren't preassured that the IRS would agree about your status.
46: It's because it's all nonsense. There is no sense to be made of it.
Speaking of lying under oath, I somehow missed that all Scooter Libby did was lie, and that he wasn't actually the Plame leaker.
And these applications really weren't urgent AFAICT -- they were for certification as a c(4), but there was no bar against going ahead and filing as one without the certification; you just weren't preassured that the IRS would agree about your status.
Didn't you hear? Not knowing if you can do political campaigns tax free without disclosing your donors equals Hitler.
An Obama impeachment now is basically the best thing that could happen for the country. The Republicans are crazy, but they're not crazy enough that it impinges on the public consciousness. But impeaching their second Democratic President in a row for incomprehensible reasons? This is the only thing that could push the House back into Democratic control in 2014.
48: Right, and that is one of the reasons that it drove me absolutely wild when various "reasonable" commentators wrote that the ABC*/Jon Karl e-mail story actually showed something that mattered. To blow off steam I wrote this "Alex Koppelman is Fucking Insane" post on my long-neglected personal blog.
*Look up ABC's Chris Vlasto and his work on Whitewater etc. to see ABC's pedigree on this type of stuff. (Although it helped lead to one of the more satisfying post-Whitewater moments when Bill Clinton lambasted Peter Jennings in an interview in 2004.)
49: Right that is what he was prosecuted for. But his lies under oath were actually material to the criminal investigation that was underway at the time. He fell hard for Cheney (although it was probably not Cheney himself--it could still have been Libby) which is why Cheney continues to grumble about Bush not pardoning him. (Rove probably leaked as well.)
48: That's what's weird, though. It's not even a question of my disagreeing with it. I don't agree that we should bomb Iran, but at least "bomb Iran" is a sentence whose meaning I can explain.
If you want to see actual government abuse of investigatory power for partisan ends look at the seeds of Whitewater. Too much to go into detail on; read Fools for Scandal and The Hunting of the President. But look up RTC investigator L. Jean Lewis some time and take a gander at these numbers for RTC hours spent on the top S&Ls that failed in Arkansas. (And there was no there there. Nothing.)
First Federal Savings of Arkansas - $833 MILLION - 13 hours
Savers Saving - $645 MILLION - 140 hours
Independence Federal - $314 MILLION - 19 hours
Landmark Savings - $91 MILLION - 3 hours
Madison Guaranty - $73 MILLION - 5,661 hours
First American Savings - $65 MILLION - 171 hours
Home Federal - $59 MILLION - None
First State Savings - $57 MILLION - None
Vlasto was the media highlight of Whitewater- he accused Hilary of lying by omission because he FORGOT TO TURN THE PAGE on a document that said "see over."
47: Franke-Ruta can bite me.
The entire media complex can bite me. Scandal week is why we can't have nice things.
57: Well, there was also Chris Matthews having Gennifer Flowers on his show to accuse Clinton of murder...
Recall the Clinton Rules:
Rule Number 1: You can say anything you want, no matter how false, as long as you say it about the Clintons.
Rule Number 2: If any allegation against a Clinton turns out to be true, you behave as though all allegations have been proven true.
I am perhaps overwrought; there have been a lot of triggers the past two weeks. Seeing the mainstream cunts come onboard is always the most soul-sucking part of this kind of thing.
Is the issue that it was a Cabinet secretary asking for money that would flow through the government? Because otherwise, isn't it basically what has been happening with S-CHIP programs for a decade now?
I though conservatives were in favor of public/private partnerships.
59 and 60 is me. I'm getting old. History is starting to repeat itself in my lifetime. It's a very horrible feeling. And I really didn't like the Clinton's and only like Obama a bit more. Still, seeing this kind of bullshit nonsense ginned up into national news, while the fucking press can't or won't cover real stories, is completely maddening.
History repeats itself, first as farce and then as fucking kill the fuck out of fucking everybody.
For reasons I can't pinpoint, I'm not really angry, so I'm not up for killing the fuck out of anyone. I'm just sad and can't help thinking that fake scandals are the true opiate of the masses. I mean, The sequester is taking big chunks out of people's lives, and the press is still dedicated to a pox-on-both-their houses narrative. And yet, I'm not even up for killing all the journalists, because it's not like their careers, or what's left of them, don't suck already.
I'm about ready to kill Bob Woodward.
Comity. Killing the fuck out of Bob Woodward should be a field trip next weekend.
I think the Clinton stuff was worse and frankly a lot more absurd. All three of these incidents now are totally legit areas for Congressional oversight. I mean, your ambassador gets killed by an angry mob? Dragnet wiretaps of an entire news organization? Possible political bias by the IRS? All legit reasons for a hearing. Problem is it 's not actual oversight aimed at determining and correcting a real problem, it's scandal mongering. Clinton in contrast was an utterly bizarre investigation of the presidents sex life.
I don't think it's so much the opiate of the masses so much as it is the two-party duopoly (and the press's role in that duopoly), as PGD said above. As long as the press sees its role as primarily reporting on who in the Washington game is winning or losing the game of acquiring power (as opposed to actually reporting on what power means), we're going to get stories like these.
67 -- Frankly almost all Congressional oversight seems like pretty much bullshit all the time. It's only useful in the sense that sometimes a really skilled and well-intentioned operator (eg Henry Waxman) can use it in combination with the stupid partisan press dynamic described above to put an important political issue on the national agenda.
I'm not sure that I'm ready to embrace the idea that the press covers this shit in this way because corporate paymasters want a distraction from real stories, but I'm not sure I'm not. Mostly, though, I don't care. This is where we are. It isn't likely to change for the better any time soon. It sucks.
69 gets it right. Our political process is well and truly broken. On the other hand, it's a beautiful day, so things could be much worse.
67: so both instances amounted to nothing more than bullshit to score cheap political points? Comity.
I think the Clinton stuff was worse and frankly a lot more absurd.
Yes aindeed.
[Susan] McDougal's grand jury testimony included her response "Get another independent counsel and I'll answer every question". ... District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright sentenced her for civil contempt of court.
From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and was subjected to "diesel therapy" (the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way).[12] In her case, Susan was shuffled from Arkansas to "Los Angeles to the Oklahoma City transfer center, and then on to the Pulaski County Jail in Little Rock, Arkansas".
I haven't paid attention to any of this stuff. Is there a reason I should?
In that case, please read my new blogs instead:
http://ernestfbynerivus.tumblr.com
http://aboutlionandoldben.tumblr.com
http://sevenmenandacorporal.wordpress.com
30: The AP thing is beyond appalling.
31: Can anyone guess why I am un-psyched about the administration eavesdropping on 100 AP reporters for two months
The DOJ wasn't actively eavesdropping on the actual conversations of reporters, live, as they happened; this was a subpoena to retrieve, retroactively, the phone numbers contacted, no access to the content of the conversations. Is that a distinction without a difference? Maybe, but it is good to be clear: this wasn't wire-tapping.
My take is that Halford gets it right at 35:
The only issue here is the amount of pre-subpoena negotiation with the AP, which was apparently less than usual (because the perceived security risk was greater)
That's what it comes down to, to my mind. My sense from various things I've read and heard -- Diane Rehm's show the other day was informative -- is that the usual practice is to inform an organization that a subpoena is being issued. This gives the org. an opportunity to challenge in court. Such a challenge may take up to a year to resolve. A year's delay was, from the DOJ's perspective, unacceptable (see Knecht's link in 27); hence the decision not to inform the AP beforehand. Given the situation, this seems not outrageous on the part of the DOJ.
There's another set of questions about the back and forth AP had with the administration prior to running the story.
As things stand, though, I find DOJ's behavior, again, not outrageous. Though there are yet another set of questions -- ones that will likely never be answered -- about why the subpoena was as sweeping as it was (100 phone lines? really?)
Oops, I misspoke: not 100 phone lines, for heaven's sake, but phone lines used by over 100 AP staff.
I think we can agree that it's hard for a scandal to out-absurd Whitewater.
37: Witt, you are wrong wrong wrong for the reasons given in 23 and 34. Obviously the IRS needs to come up with mechanisms that aren't just looking for a picture of Reagan with a halo on their website, but there are literally hundreds of these sham "education and social welfare" charities -- mostly but not universally on the right -- used as cutouts and grifting mechanisms, and the end goal here is to get to a point where the IRS is scared to do its job regarding them.
Am I mistaken in thinking that a phone line used by over 100 AP staff could occupy a single IP address? Put otherwise, it could be an address used by a single computer, used by one AP reporter who reads emails from his coworkers thereon?
The ability of Republicans to get official Washington talking about any damn thing they please really is impressive, I'll give them that. Obama lied, four State Department officials died! You would think twenty fucking years of demonstrating that they are unmoored from consensus reality would hinder them, but I guess consensus reality is for chumps who don't work at Politico and ABC.
So I guess there's the answer to Heebie's question: they were lying about basically everything in Watergate, as anyone bothering to do the barest modicum of research could tell, but that description doesn't fit the bulk of cable news reporters. So why should this be any different? They got a few days of breathless accounts about how OBAMA == NIXON, enough to get even relative non-stupes like Ryan Lizza to think that where there was smoke there was fire, and now we're back to "Accounts Differ on Shape of Earth".
In Watergate s/b Whitewater, obvs. Although the Republicans were lying about Watergate too!
37 82
I mostly agree with Witt although I would emphasize that this is an IRS management issue. The problem seems to be that the IRS doesn't have any clear and enforceable rules for what 501c4 organizations are allowed to do and not allowed to do. So the first priority of the IRS should be to come up with some. Without such rules telling low level people to crack down is a recipe for disaster. You can expect to get the sort of indefensible biased and erratic harassment that actually occurred.
And I don't see why initial approval shouldn't be more or less automatic (given submission of a short and simple form). You give them approval, explain the rules and reporting requirements and then go after the violators.
Don't even talk to me about Politico.
I'm afraid I'm to the point that I'll put much of this on the media, which -- even aside from Politico -- is apparently so fucking incurious, or just bored with itself, that all it can do is lap up what it's handed.
The problem seems to be that the IRS doesn't have any clear and enforceable rules for what 501c4 organizations are allowed to do and not allowed to do.
"Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes."
I don't see why initial approval shouldn't be more or less automatic
Well, they sort of do, as mentioned earlier- you don't have to pre-apply to file as a tax exempt org, it's just you'll have to pay back taxes and interest if you're found afterwards to not qualify.
83: IP address? It's phones. And I think there is definite confirmation of multiple lines, some of which were used by multiple people.
I agree that "eavesdropping" is imprecise because it implies listening to content rather than tracking calls. "Spying" I'll stick with. Good chance it's legal except for the admin. guidelines about press but: (1) it damn well shouldn't be--the third party doctrine that lets the gov't get your call records because the phone company has them is wrong, much like the doctrine that your emails are fair game without a warrant (2) it is most certainly intended to chill reporting/leaking. (3) Leaking to/reporting by journalists like the ones being surveilled & others like them is virtually the only check on a secrecy system that this administration is blatantly abusing. Everyone in D.C. is all: "of course we over classify", but it's a rote disclaimer. We're classifying at thousands of times the rate of declassification, leading to violations of the First Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, Convention Against Torture, and concealing god knows what else.
The piece I linked to is mainly about 3.
How could I forget Solyndra, the previous scandal that was going to topple a Presidency. Various talking heads pretended to take that one seriously* as Saying Something Important About Obama and Corruption. "Oh no! A company given Department of Energy loans has gone bankrupt! Can our Republic stand the tremors as this colossus falls?"
How much attention has The Case of Who Edited Susan Rice's Memo gotten compared in the press compared to, say, the continuing evisceration of the already insufficient Dodd-Frank?
* Exception made for the mouthbreathers at Politico.
91 -- I haven't been following closely, but I don't see an argument that it's at all illegal. How many people use the phone lines doesn't matter, so long as the phone numbers they picked are the ones possibly used by the supposed leakers to talk to someone at the AP.
Do you think it's a fake investigation anyway, to placate Republicans complaining about leaks and misdirect away from Brennan?
I'm all on board with 91.3, but the leak here (if it is that the AQ operation was compromised) is some pretty serious shit. Not obviously an overclassification, by any means. And so, if this really is it, not a very good hill for the press to die on.
But if it was Brennan who leaked it, that's a scalp worth pursuing.
So, I guess I'm going to retreat from 'it'll all blow over' and go with 'if they can get to Brennan, this one will go.' Luckily for Brennan, a bunch of morons think the target is Holder, and that's not going to work.
94: not so much the hill to die on as yet one more example of a troubling pattern, and if this one wakes them up, great.
Can't figure out what the deal is with exactly what the leak was. Emptywheel seems to be making good guesses. The AP seems to have behaved reasonably as far as notifying admin. & holding off on publication until told that danger of compromising an operation was mitigated. But maybe the original leaker wasn't--still, what harm did it do before the AP published & Brennan's "damage control" gave away key details?
Politico is one part Sally Quinn's 1998 "Villager Rosetta Stone" Clinton article*, one part Drudge, and one part crypto-Bircherite Mike Allen. Molly Redden was spot on with this tweet about their fatuous "D.C. turns on Obama" article**: Calls for Obama to lead, blind quotes on "narrative," Maureen Dowd--it's like the platonic ideal of a Politico piece.
*"The judgment is harsher in Washington," says The Post's Broder. "We don't like being lied to."
**You've really got to read it to believe how bad it is.
The AP issue is basically just a surprise. I've been under the impression that the Republican policy on this sort of thing is "People who leak anything to the press should be put in solitary confinement until the trial a decade later, and fuck the press anyway, they should be driven out of business, bunch of ineffectual obsolete whiners". Now it's the opposite? The fact that they can all turn on a dime is the scary part.
9.2 gets it right on BENGHAZI!!!. And sure it probably deserved some scrutiny. But I'll call it quits right here if any of the politically-motivated histrionics of the puling tragedy-fuckers like McCain, Graham, Chaffetz, and Issa is within shouting distance of Congressional Oversight.
Like vw in 64, I don't believe most of the DC media should be killed, rather just consigned to live out their lives under house arrest in places like Ottumwa, Iowa and Fort Wayne, Indiana* on a standard Social Security income linked to chained CPI.
89
"Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes."
This is not clear and enforceable. My organization is going to promote the social welfare by educating the public about the evils of liberalism in general and liberal candidates for office in particular.
One obnoxious feature of this affair is that the organizations being harassed were tiny while it was business as usual for the big money groups.
The IRS scandal and, arguably, Benghazi are direct results of the larger Republican strategy of underfunding government and then running against the resultant failures.
Best quick summary of putting Benghazi in context; a short clip of Eric Boehlert, Joan Walsh and Chris Hayes from All In.
100
The IRS scandal and, arguably, Benghazi are direct results of the larger Republican strategy of underfunding government and then running against the resultant failures.
I don't see any connection between the IRS scandal and lack of money. If you have limited resources why waste them on petty harassment?
As for Benghazi as has been noted above this was a consequence of the poorly considered intervention. Why should Congress provide unlimited funding for stupid foreign adventures?
85: enough to get even relative non-stupes like Ryan Lizza to think that where there was smoke there was fire
Right, which is why I added a "Ryan Lizza is also fucking insane" update to my "Alex Koppelman is Fucking Insane." piece. Here's Lizza relating his running into Darrel "Tragedy Humper" Issa, Like many journalists who haven't followed every single twist and turn of the case, I found e-mails that had been leaked to ABC News the week before somewhat damning, and I said so..
103: I was assuming better security would've made a difference in Benghazi, and that the keyword search was an attempt to compensate for a lack of manpower. Obviously neither of those is a given.
Ryan Lizza is a credulous dullard. Or so I've always thought. Is there reason to believe otherwise? (Also, thank heavens I'm home. Typing on an iPhone is all kinds of ass.)
Mostly I'm tired of hearing Republican operatives complain about the lack of security and things like only one agent being assigned to the 501(c) approval process.
The keyword search, as I understand it, was a result of the IRS finding itself up a post-Citizens United shitcreek without a paddle clue. But absent a clue, a large staff would probably have helped.
Mostly I'm tired of hearing people complain about Republican hypocrisy (this comment is not directed at you, Eggplant, as you are in excellent company among my very dear friends). The Republicans are the party of hypocrisy and convenient lies, both large and small, told in service of consolidating and projecting power. And for years and years now, that's the standard to which they've (not) been held by the press and the electorate. Why are people still surprised by this turn of events? It is what it is.
Well, yeah, it does sound like a horrible law, if for no other reason than I now am being subjected to claims that the Tea Parties were focussed on teaching Constitutional history.
108
... But absent a clue, a large staff would probably have helped.
How would a larger staff have helped absent clear instructions on what they were supposed to be doing?
105
I was assuming better security would've made a difference in Benghazi, ...
You never have unlimited resources. The government chose to put people in Benghazi with a certain level of security and things didn't work out. There were alternatives, more security or staying out of Benghazi. It is too easy to blame all your failures on lack of money.
I've not noticed people being surprised by the Republicans. Well, maybe Heebie.
Fair enough, James, and staying out would've been my preference, but I don't see the Republicans arguing for that, either. Especially not the loudmouths like McCain.
113: half the stories on the front page of TPM (the only blog I still read, and it's really a newspaper, right?) are designed to elicit outrage about this or that Republican misdeed. "GOP rep sprays gunfire into midst of prayer vigil held by family of Sandy Hook victims!" "Republican senator burns Quran at mosk, cross at black church!" "Elephantine governor denies global warming, blows up moon!" We fucking know they're hypocrites, bigots, and liars, Josh. Our blood is sufficiently angried up. We're voting the Democratic ticket.
92
How could I forget Solyndra, the previous scandal that was going to topple a Presidency. Various talking heads pretended to take that one seriously* as Saying Something Important About Obama and Corruption. "Oh no! A company given Department of Energy loans has gone bankrupt! Can our Republic stand the tremors as this colossus falls?"
Solyndra may not be the biggest deal it the world but it was an extremely stupid investment that was practically certain to fail. And it suggests government money was being handed out indiscriminantly to anyone claiming to be in the solar power business without considering whether their business plan made any sense at all.
Like I said, I'm getting old. And cranky, too. Each year, my lawn gets bigger and bigger. And it gets harder and harder to keep the kids with their house music and their pinterest off it.
113: My alternative to anger is depression. If you have any other suggestions...
half the stories on the front page of TPM (the only blog I still read, and it's really a newspaper, right?) are designed to elicit outrage about this or that Republican misdeed.
I am also finding this aspect of TPM increasingly annoying.
118: Have you considered crack? Apparently it's all the rage these days.
Denial is a popular choice, but not a possibility for me. I'm saving grief and acceptance for later. Gotta have something to look forward to.
116: Keep on fucking that chicken, James.
114
... Especially not the loudmouths like McCain.
Lots of Republicans don't like McCain or his endless wars everywhere foreign policy.
I feel kind of like the parts of the liberal blog world that shifted away from the "some idiot said something stupid" genre of post after Bush left office have now returned to that mode. Given that there's basically no significant movement on major policy on anything anymore, at least on a national scale, maybe they've run out of energy to talk about stuff that won't happen.
Also, campaign finance hipsters were talking about the coming problems with 501c4s as far back as 2008 when the squares were still saying 527 this and Swift Boat that.
I think 124 is right. "Gridlock: still" isn't likely to pull in the page views.
122
Keep on fucking that chicken, James
A nice reasoned response.
Solyndra's product wasn't competitive as long as silicon prices were cheap. There was a spike in silicon prices because of an unforseen surge in demand. However silicon is the second most abundant element in the earth's crust, there was no inherant shortage just a temporary lack of production facilities. So it was totally predictable that the price of silicon would return to normal once more production capacity was added. This was what happened making Solyndra's production facility hopelessly uncompetitive the day it was "finished". So Solyndra declared bankruptcy, the plant never operated and the government lost its money. Not a wise investment.
PREZ TO CONGRESS: DROP ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.......
||
This is really rather a lot of snow for the middle of May.
|>
TPM (the only blog I still read)
Hmmm....
You don't have to read a blog to comment on it.
Huh, Whitewater really was stupider, wasn't it? I had completely forgotten what few details I ever understood until this thread. That's progress, right?
I supposed I have to drop in and troll this tiresome bullshit. Okay.
Fucking Spectacle
That is all.
||
Oh hell.
In which TBogg of FDL, Obama apologist, explains why a Bradley Manning Float would pollute the message purity and social seriousness of the SF Gay Pride Parade.
There be Comments.
This could be an easy place to study how the Spectacle works, and whose identities are sustained by it. Not in the parade or the conflict, or even in the differentiation, social selection, exclusion and inclusion etc but in who gets to make the "rules.'
Like bringing up the Bradley Manning Float in a thread about Obama pseudo-scandals.
|>
||
I think what's fun and relevant about the TBogg thread is that TBogg doesn't directly argue that Manning is a traitor and Obama a saint, but uses the usual process liberal arguments about order and message discipline.
Mustn't inject radical politics and controversy into a Gay Pride Parade. Pretty funny, in a way.
And thus it relates to liberals complaining about Republicans disrupting our very serious and substantive policy discussions with messy scandal-mongering.
But the fight over what should be screamed about on the boob-tube is the Spectacle, not a distraction from it.
|>
I hope the New Jerseyites loudly complaining at passport control about how they shouldn't have to show their passports because they already did that at the check-in counter aren't reflective of how the next 9 hours of travel are going to go....
Since the IRS commissioner when the violations happened was a Bush holdover, I believe the Republicans have now investigated more Bush administration officials than Obama has.
||
Speaking of lying, the current officer-involved shooting case here has all the hallmarks of a cover-up.
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/207968221.html
We're being asked to believe:
1. That a burglary suspect tried to run down some cops when they tried to arrest him.
2. That, in the basement of a small bungalow, there were 4 officers and a suspect and a police dog, and the suspect had enough freedom of movement to grab an MP5 off an officer's chest and squeeze off two rounds, both of which hit other officers in the legs.
3. That only then did one of the cops pull his pistol out and shoot the suspect.
4. That a police SUV responding to an officer down call was traveling, with sirens and lights, at only 16 miles per hour. And that it didn't run a red light. And that the witnesses who say it was going at 30 or 40 miles an hour are mistaken.
The whole thing just stinks of a cover-up. Here's what really happened: The cops cornered the kid in the basement and all started firing willy-nilly. The kid got shot to death, and a couple of the officers got hit by friendly fire. Then, half an hour later, some other cops came barreling along at 40 miles an hour on a very busy street, not because they were needed, but because everybody wants to be there for the excitement of an officer down call.
My prediction: Medals for the cops that shot the kid, and 2 or 3 years from now a $250K settlement for the family of the motorcyclist.
||>
[H]alf the stories on the front page of TPM (the only blog I still read, and it's really a newspaper, right?) are designed to elicit outrage about this or that Republican misdeed.
"The Patriarchy called somebody fat, which is racist!"
||
Book I'm reading, Spectacular Capitalism, just doesn't yet seem to get it. Debord was fifty years ago, when "The Spectacle is something done to us passive consumers" made a little sense. Author needs to move on to tiqqun.
The question is what is the social space in which "No more Benghazi" and/or "We want more Peggy" has meaning, exchange value, creates surplus, is a product. And yes, Mad Men blogging is exactly fucking exactly the same as evil Republican tricks blogging.
Mad Men is no longer the product.
The audience is no longer the product.
The community of otakus, of sharers of Mad Men, of political junkies, is now the product, and it is self-generating, self-regulating, self-reproducing. This community can switch itself to The Killing or from healthcare to Treyvon Martin or whatever the next show. Easy fucking profits.
Basket of Kisses is about Mad Men watchers watching themselves watching. And disciplining.
The Spectacle is self-creating, and always already everywhere.
|>
Oh bob, you're such a maverick!
We're being asked to believe:
1. That a burglary suspect tried to run down some cops when they tried to arrest him.
Maybe I'm biased, but I'm finding it quite believable that a guy with these priors did in fact try to run over some cops and then grabbed a gun when they tried to arrest him.
Oh come on, that all could have been the result of one crazy weekend.
His attempt to run over some cops happened right after the cops had pulled him over and were trying to prevent him from leaving, so saying he was trying to run them over is probably pushing it.
Also he supposedly grabbed an MP5 that an officer had on strap crossing his torso and successfully shot two officers with it, while simultaneously being attacked by a police dog. He does have priors but it's hard to believe that he was in fact The Batman.
144.2: And all this in a space where there was not enough room to swing a cat. Very suspicious.
You don't have to be the Batman to thrash around and grab at shit after a dog's latched on to your leg.
We must also remember that these are Minneapolis cops, and at this point I will believe pretty much anything about them.
The police story isn't that he was thrashing around managed to grab at an officers gun and some people ended up getting shot. It is that he "leapt towards" one of the police officers (again, while a police dog had a firm grip on his leg), successfully wrestled the gun away from the officer (though it was still attached to him), and shot two other police officers. Then a fourth police officer stood directly in front of him and fatally shot him, with rather impressive aim given that neither the dog that was attacking the suspect nor the police officer the suspect was wrestling with at the time were injured in any way, even in a basement dark enough that he had to use a flashlight.
And, yeah, with the Minneapolis Police Department "they probably just wanted to kill him" isn't exactly a bad first reaction to hearing about an officer shooting a suspect.
Actually - no. I was mistaken in that description. The police claim that the officer that shot the suspect was standing between the officer with the MP5 and the suspect while they were struggling over the weapon, and only then drew his side arm and shot the suspect. I don't know that this makes the story more plausible, but if that is what happened he must be impressively flexible.
successfully wrestled the gun away from the officer (though it was still attached to him)
That's not in the articles I read, just that he grabbed it and managed to get a couple rounds off. It's very possible to break free from a dog and continue to fight. I've seen it firsthand.
and fatally shot him, with rather impressive aim given that neither the dog that was attacking the suspect nor the police officer the suspect was wrestling with at the time were injured in any way
There's not a lot of aiming needed at point blank range. You just jam the gun where you want to shoot him and pull the trigger.
Here you go. But I think the fact that the police officer whose gun he supposedly fired was also holding onto the gun (even if only the barrel) at the time would be close enough, really.
But the biggest unreasonable part of the story is that he was supposedly standing between the two of them while they struggled. (Is he very, very thin? How did he succesfully draw a side arm while, again, standing between two people who were grappling for control of a gun at the time?)
I'm hesitant to nitpick details on a story without seeing the actual report, especially after a few years of reading news articles about cases I've personally been involved with. But that aside, taking the article at face value, I'm pretty sure "put himself between" to shoot the guy is a bit more dynamic and fluid then him standing there having a smoke or something.
Digby: What do Jonathan Karl and James O'Keefe have in common?
Well, well, well. Click through to the Jay Rosen piece. Not that this will filter through to most Americans, but the Benghazi bullshit is even more egregious than usual.
Are you suggesting there's an organized right-wing, let's call it a conspiracy, and that it's so large as to be vast?
I think I've said this before, but when I first heard the Republicans were going to make a political point of it, I assumed they were going to say Obama had somehow used the event to exaggerate the danger of terrorism to try to create a rally-round-the-flag thing. I still don't understand how they expect that running around announcing there was terrorist attack was going to hurt the incumbent in that short of a time frame.
155 -- It depends entirely on Obama having declared victory over Al Qaeda, and bragged that no one ever affiliated with it could ever do any harm to anyone ever again. From where I sit this is one of the most bizarre claims imaginable: what are all those drones doing in Pakistan and Yemen, then? And our soldiers in Afghanistan -- we're keeping them there for two more years because, well, we won and we get to do whatever we want?
It's as if they saw him cut himself shaving, and point to the blood to argue that he's not a God-king after all.
155: Nope, the Repubs knew that using the threat of terrorism to turn the country into a bunch of cravens only works for them. Imagine the response if the Obama administration had done something remotely close to the terror warning manipulation during the 2004 campaign.
[from his 2009 book] Ridge says he objected to raising the security level despite the urgings of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, according to a publicity release from Ridge's publisher. He said the episode convinced him to follow through with his plans to leave the administration; he resigned on Nov. 30, 2004.The asymmetry is so massive and generally unacknowledged in the mainstream that I admit that it makes me extremely reluctant to jump on the IRS bandwagon (a nothingburger at best) and the AP thing (which is definitely one more indicator of our overall drift towards oligarchy).
A TV news journalist relied on forged documents provided by a source with partisan motivations, to substantiate a story that would damage the president? This guy is lucky he's a widely respected legendary figure like Dan Rather, because if he was a functionally interchangeable lightweight with known partisan tendencies like Jonathan Karl, he would have been fired already.
And since we were speaking of the Clinton Crazies, one fact that is rarely mentioned is that Paula Jones's original attorneys wanted her to accept a settlement offer of $700,000 (before the barely-related Lewinsky testimony*) but "she" rejected it because she wanted an apology (under the guidance of her conservative press spokesperson).
With the dismissal of her defamation claim, Jones's remaining complaints are worth $525,000 if she wins, so Davis and Cammarata argued she should declare victory by accepting the original $700,000 even without an outright apology.They subsequently withdrew form the case. Jones herself in 2009:
Jones does have one regret about her role in the Clinton Impeachment saga, however. She claims she was used as a political pawn by conservatives out to get Clinton, charging that they pressured her to reject the first settlement offer. "I hate the fact that people thought it was political," Jones tells TIME. "It was their agenda to make it [seem] like I was trying to bring down the President. They let political views bog their mind of what really happened."*BTW, reminds me that everyone in the world should be aware that Baylor University has a deeply unethical and dishonest president.
158: Right. The Republican "scandals" associated with Benghazi are about eleventy-x times worse than those of the Dems (starting with Mitt "Dick" Romney the very first evening).
I still think they would have been better off running a couple of ads saying "Obama killed bin Laden" and take the whole thing as either fund raising or more evidence that you really shouldn't let Rove interpret you polling results.
From what I've heard the IRS appears to have been trying to enforce the law, and Obama is throwing them under the bus in a rather cowardly way. Certain types of olitical action by a c(3) are a clear violation of the law. But I'll admit I don't have the patience to really fully parse these 'scandals'.
Frankly almost all Congressional oversight seems like pretty much bullshit all the time.
Oversight is a big chunk of what Congress does and a big reason it exists, the power to write laws makes little sense without the power to try to see how they're being enforced. So in some sense you're questioning the rationale for a legislature here.
Oversight is a big chunk of what Congress does and a big reason it exists
Oversight is a big chunk of what Congress is *supposed* to do, but these days that mostly amounts to pounding on tables during grandstanding speeches that could mostly be reduced to "Derpderphaveyounosenseofdecencyderpderp."
163: Yeah, but it's not like today's Congress spends the rest of its time passing laws or vetting executive branch appointments either.
One estimate I saw was that since 2011 15% of the time when the House was in session was consumed by attempts to repeal Obamacare.
162
From what I've heard the IRS appears to have been trying to enforce the law, and Obama is throwing them under the bus in a rather cowardly way. Certain types of olitical action by a c(3) are a clear violation of the law. But I'll admit I don't have the patience to really fully parse these 'scandals'.
The IRS was obviously totally lost, not too surprising as the law is in fact not clear at all. And management problems in the IRS are partly on Obama as he couldn't be bothered to appoint a permanent director.
The law is really quite clear that electioneering is not a tax-exempt public welfare purpose. There are certainly a number of loopholes and grey areas around 'educational' functions but that does not change the basic prohibition. I recommend this excellent post by Peter Levine , which may deserve its own thread.
I'd have to do some research to back this up, but that post looks wrong to me -- I thought (c)(4)s were permitted to do some electioneering so long as it wasn't their primary focus.
So the AP thing seems like maybe it'll get new life this morning after the revelation that the FBI subpoenaed Google to get a Fox reporters emails to and from a guy they had leaked classified info to the reporter. In exchange, apparently, for playing to his vanity.
169 -- I think c(4)s find it easier to lobby on bills, but they cannot do much election stuff in general -- here is relevant regulation:
ยง 1.501(c)(4)-1Civic organizations and local associations of employees.
(a) Civic organizations-- (1) In general. A civic league or organization may be exempt as an organization described in section 501(c)(4) if--
(i) It is not organized or operated for profit; and
(ii) It is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
....
(ii) Political or social activities. The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
168, 169: From an '80s IRS ruling:
[An] organization may carry on lawful political activities and remain exempt under section 501(c)(4) as long as it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare.
I stand corrected, thanks.
In any case, there was clearly ample reason for the IRS to be checking up on tax-exempt charitable organizations to check the scope of their engagement in political activities.
And... Glenn Greenwald on the AP case and the Obama administration on the press. Sounds really bad.
Oh, sorry, that was Greenwald on the new Fox News surveillance case.
168 onward: I read, and 171-2 seem to support, that the text of the statute is clear that no campaigning acitivity at all is allowed, but the IRS regulation implementing the statute loosened it so that campaigning is OK so long as it's not a 501(c)(4)'s "primary" activity, which has since been interpreted by the entities themselves as a simple majority of expenditure test, even though that has no basis in law or policy.
176
168 onward: I read, and 171-2 seem to support, that the text of the statute is clear that no campaigning acitivity at all is allowed, but the IRS regulation implementing the statute loosened it so that campaigning is OK so long as it's not a 501(c)(4)'s "primary" activity, which has since been interpreted by the entities themselves as a simple majority of expenditure test, even though that has no basis in law or policy.
You may say this has no basis in law or policy but since the IRS hasn't challenged it, it has become the default rule. If the IRS doesn't like it, it needs to write some regulations to the contrary. Instead it has been wasting time and resources on pointless harassment of small tea party groups. By the way campaign activity just means support of particular candidates in elections. There are no limits on lobbying (including supporting or opposing referendums) or political advocacy (including get out the vote drives). See page 2 of the Inspector General's report :
An organization engages in lobbying, or legislative activities, when it attempts to influence specific legislation bydirectly contacting members of a legislative body (Federal, State, or local) or encouraging the public to contact thosemembers regarding that legislation. An organization also engages in lobbying when it encourages the public to takea position on a referendum. Lobbying is distinguished from political campaign intervention because lobbying doesnot involve attempts to influence the election of candidates for public office.
An organization engages in general advocacy when it attempts to 1) influence public opinion on issues germane tothe organization's tax-exempt purposes, 2) influence nonlegislative governing bodies (e.g., the executive branch or regulatory agencies), or 3) encourage voter participation through "get out the vote" drives, voter guides, and candidate debates in a nonpartisan, neutral manner. General advocacy basically includes all types of advocacy other than political campaign intervention and lobbying.
I'm agreeeing that the IRS implementation of the statute is the problem. But if the IRS had done its job properly and/or been better staffed, Tea Party groups (and liberal ones) would probably have been subject to more "harrassment".
170: So, is it still the case that emails are not considered private communications because sysadmins can see them? Did that decision ever get reversed?
One of the lawyers can give a better answer, no doubt, but I think emails stored on a (third party?) server are considered fair game after a certain amount of time, the time depending on whether they've been read by the user or not (don't ask me why, the whole thing is insane) .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak
I think this is still good law.
180- The rule is 6 months they're considered "abandoned" and therefore fair game, which is transparent bullshit exploiting a rule written before the widespread use of email.
In 2010 there was a huge influx of applications from conservative groups, so even any random questioning of applications would appear biased against them. As I said in 43, only 1/3 of the groups that received additional requests were classified as "conservative" so it's not like it was an exclusive examination of tea party groups.
(Good law in Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan. In Montana we have stronger privacy protections than the Fourth Amendment, so maybe here to (for state prosecutions))
180: Yes, outside the Sixth Circuit, the Stored Communications Act allows the gov't to access emails in remote electronic storage for more that 180 days via subpoena (and, generally, advance notice to the account holder, though that can be delayed under certain cirucmstances) rather than a warrant. Warshak held that that was inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment but I don't know whether DOJ has decided to treat that as the law of the land (it doesn't have to, and I doubt it would), and I don't think any other circuits have reached the issue.
182
... As I said in 43, only 1/3 of the groups that received additional requests were classified as "conservative" so it's not like it was an exclusive examination of tea party groups.
You have some source for the 1/3 claim? I have only seen a breakout for "tea party" and similar phrases. And they shouldn't have been holding any applications without having a procedure for dealing with them other than indefinite delay.
The whole thing is an egregious management failure. First you write the regulations, then you enforce them.
Carlito's Way was apparently way different in the original?
First you write the regulations, then you enforce them then you get the women