White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

malraid writes "The White House has issued a statement in which they refuse to comment on the petition to investigate Chris Dodd for bribery from the MPAA to pass legislation. The reason given: 'because it requests a specific law enforcement action.'"

Re:What?

[Darkness404]

...And the President constitutionally shouldn't be able to make laws that bypass congress, yet they have done it all the time via executive orders. The President shouldn't be able to order the targeted death of US citizens but yet the current president did it just fine. Etc.

Re:Executive branch

[iggymanz]

it's almost like what they taught in civics class, just have to add a phrase before each sentence and another after:

those two phrases are "The mega-corporate bitches of" and "for the benefit of the mega-corporations"

1. The corporate bitches of Congress make the laws for the benefit of the mega-corporations

2. The corporate bitches of the executive branch enforce the laws for the benefit of the mega-corporations

3. The corporate bitches of the Supreme Court interpret the laws for the benefit of the mega-corporations

Let's revise the oath of office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the agenda of the mega-corporations, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the interests of all those mega corporations, so help me Mammon.

Campaign contributions are not bribes

[voss]

Nobody will be prosecuted....too many people already say "If so so doesn't vote my way Im not gonna contribute to his campaign." OR "If you support my bill I will contribute to your campaign" the promises are vague and non-specific.

"...if the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act. In such situations the official asserts that his official conduct will be controlled by the terms of the promise or undertaking." McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991)

  On the other hand if Dodd had said "If you support SOPA I will give your campaign $50,000" that would be quid pro quo. A threat to withhold support is not bribery. There has to be an explicit offer or threat. Campaign contributions have a higher standard of proof for bribery allegations than say a private payment.

Re:Alright

[Jethro]

Small nitpick here: Dodd is not an elected official anymore. So he doesn't have a congressional district. He USED to be, and when he was he fought very hard for the MPAA... and now he has a very well-paying job with them. Shocking, I know.

Re:the plutocracy sucks

[circletimessquare]

hey, asshole:

we don't live in a fascist country

all you have demonstrated with your comment is that you are historically ignorant and have not the slightest fucking clue of what real fascism is like

Re:This is overblown nonsense

[dreampod]

They should be indicted - every last one of them.

Being a elected official in the US is extremely lucrative with lots of 'gifts' and 'free' vacations from friends and supporters after they have finished serving their terms, highly paid jobs within industries they 'regulated', highly paid jobs with companies that got legislated overpriced no-bid contracts, highly paid lobbying jobs that take advantage of their access, and a rate of return on investments 60% higher than market average (and about 20% higher than average RoR with insider trading). Simply because the payoff is delayed doesn't mean that it isn't happening and because it is so well known about nobody ever has to actually make an agreement for the bribery because the politician takes the lead knowing that if they behave in a particular way that they are guaranteed a lucrative result.

One of the reasons that other countries look at the US with horror is how blatant and openly corrupt your government officials are. In Canada the governing party for over 40 years fell and was replaced over a scandal directing work to a company that supported the Liberal party. The total amount was under $2 million dollars over 8 years which is less than every single representative and senator directs to supporters each and every budget. Even the most ethical politician on the national stage is wildly corrupted and should be charged and imprisoned.

Re:Darn

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for visiting the Department's "Contact Us" page. On behalf of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice would like to thank you for your many messages on law enforcement issues and activities and other matters of special interest to many groups across the nation. The Attorney General appreciates the fact that so many citizens have taken the time to express their views and thoughts on these important matters.

By Mail

Correspondence to the Department, including the Attorney General, may be sent to:

        U.S. Department of Justice
        950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
        Washington, DC 20530-0001

By Phone

Department of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000

Office of the Attorney General Public Comment Line - 202-353-1555

To call component officials, see the Directory of Department Officials [justice.gov]

By E-Mail

E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to [e-mail] [mailto]. E-mails will be forwarded to the responsible Department of Justice component for appropriate handling.

Please note:

        Before sending e-mail, please read our Privacy Policy [justice.gov] for details about how we handle personal information.
        E-mail accounts are not available for service of official, case-related or legal documents and is not monitored for such submissions or for other time-sensitive communications.
        E-mails with attachments will be deleted as a precaution as they may contain viruses.
        Please include your mailing address in the event that the Department replies via United States Postal Service.

No. The petition asked for the wrong thing.

[tlambert]

The correct request for a petition would be to impeach Dodd for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The impeachment process may be triggered by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of what actions constitute grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, a state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition.

.

hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#The_federal_impeachment_procedure

A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanours [wikipedia.org]

Despite that he left office on 3 Jan 2011 and went on to head the MPAA in March 2011, and therefore was not in office, there is precedent for impeaching a government official after leaving office. That precedent is the 1876 case of General William Belknap, who was impeached by a unanimous vote of the House of Representatives shortly after he had resigned for allegedly having received money in return for post tradership appointments (bribery).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._Belknap [wikipedia.org]

Other precedents also exist. Feel free to consult a real lawyer before submitting the next petition so that a stronger case can be made and actually trigger action.

-- Terry

Re:Dying from lack of surprise...

[an unsound mind]

And truly, the English language is and always has been set in stone, handed over by God himself to the early man.

Wait, no, that's not it: "it's" was the possessive of "it" - and the contradiction of "it is" was "'tis".

Re:Dying from lack of surprise...

[locopuyo]

Eric Holder got off scott free for shipping guns to Mexican drug cartels. This country is gone.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise...

[CanEHdian]

How about adding the Public Integrity Section (PIN) [justice.gov] at the US DoJ?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Dying from lack of surprise...

[meglon]

Unfortunately, using this quote really means is that in this age of half the people not being able to comprehend anything past a soundbite, that anyone who strings a few pretty words together can have their ideas taken entirely out of context to mean absolutely anything; something that for the past couple years, with this specific quote, is actually hilarious when you consider what Jefferson was really saying... as in: in context.

Jefferson wasn't suggesting that people rise up every so often to keep their government on it's toes. He was replying to concern of the deaths during Shay's rebellion. He cited that these men had risen up because they were ignorant and uninformed of what was happening, and that on occasion, the government will have to kill rebels who rise up to do the country harm.... and that's acceptable, and a normal process.

Too many people who want to try to make a point with fake authority take things out of context using old quotes like this, and this one in particular was often seen at teabagger rallies. The people exhibiting them clearly didn't have the first clue what Jefferson was actually saying. For them to exhibit it, they were actually saying "I'm an ignorant rebel, please kill me."

Context is everything.

Re:Dying from lack of surprise...

[Attila Dimedici]

I just re-read the letter which that quote is taken from. Thomas Jefferson was saying that while these rebels were ignorant and misinformed, they were correct to rebel on the basis of what they understood and that it would be bad for the country if a time ever arose where people did not rebel when they had such understandings of what was going on, even if those understandings where wrong. He was saying that the government must know that if it allows the populace to develop such misconceptions, the populace will rebel. The fact of the matter is. our government has discovered that when the American people of today believe similar abuses of power are occurring they will not rise up in rebellion. Once it became apparent that the people would not rise up in rebellion against the misperception of abuse of power, it was only a short time until those in power, rather than attempt to show the people that they were not so abusing their power, began to actually abuse their power in the manner which people had beforehand misperceived them to do.