Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Piracy Crime Government Politics Your Rights Online

White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd 765

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Refuses To Comment On Petition To Investigate Chris Dodd

Comments Filter:
  • by killfixx ( 148785 ) * on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:03PM (#38886239) Journal

    Good to know that greed and corruption still rule. I was worried that we may be entering some weird, "by and for the people" period in American history.

    Seriously though, what's it gonna take? How bad does it have to get before Joe Sixpack wakes up and takes notice? How much more before we finally have that revolution?

    I've been fighting with my votes, my dollar, and by educating everyone who will listen. I'm ready to lock and load to get MY America back.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by luther349 ( 645380 )
      they really couldn't go after him even if they wanted to. the rats would all start squealing on there buddy's witch would be the whole lot of them. the only way to get rid of these guys is to stop voting for them. and if that does not work with guns.
      • by dbet ( 1607261 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:22PM (#38886429)
        Well, any one of us can only stop voting for 3 of them. And to be honest, there's a lot of people out there who are totally okay with corruption.
      • by TheCouchPotatoFamine ( 628797 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:35PM (#38886537)

        So why don't we do ask this again - and better people then me should phrase it - but this time asking if they think "that type of corruption has is occuring" and "if Chriss Dodd 's actions are aligned with the morals of the administration"? Is this "a cockroach you see", among the thousands we don't? What is the white house's stance on money in politics, and have they investigated others, during the this administration? Who is analyzing finances and trends to spot inconsistencies? Are there any active investigations of this at present?

        it's wrong to just not answer, when they could have made a statement, avoiding the issue of guilt. That's a cop out, and i expect more.

        • by anagama ( 611277 ) <> on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @12:24AM (#38886963) Homepage

          I hate the "let me fix that for ya" phrase, but this really stands out:

          That's a cop out, as expected.

    • by icebike ( 68054 ) * on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:20PM (#38886405)

      Exactly as I predicted when everybody here on Slashdot was insisting the would HAVE TO act.

      This is Obama, he need only make the promise. He doesn't have to DO anything.

      • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:26PM (#38886471)

        its not about obama, dammit.

        it wasn't entirely about bush.

        its ENTIRELY about the system and how anyone who enters leaves corrupt.

        money makes the political system work and that's what's wrong.

        stop pointing fingers at one guy. can't you see beyond that (please?)

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:41PM (#38886589)

          Your little idealistic plea is nice and all, but I hope you see that you're perpetuating the system.

          Prosecuting one person is a good place to start at ending the systematic corruption. Whining about it and trying to divide attention makes it less likely that anything concrete will ever get started. That's why it's good to "point fingers at one guy". I don't think there's a single person that thinks all of the corruption in the entire system is due to one guy, but we need to direct attention somewhere.

        • by Sturm ( 914 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:42PM (#38886607) Journal

          Obama is the President. Obama HAS been the President for several years.

          That's how it works.

          Blame Bush all you want for taxes or the economy or high gas prices or even pimples on your ass if it makes you feel better.

          Obama is the current President and his administration is in charge. He should be held accountable for NOT holding people account for things that happen on his watch.

        • by Baloroth ( 2370816 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @12:14AM (#38886877)

          The system is composed of individuals. If you can drag the corruption of individuals out into the public and hold them responsible, you can make others think twice (or more) about their own actions. If reform is to come, it must come one step at a time. It is simply wishful thinking to believe the entire system can be fixed all at once. The starting point is to take individuals to task for their actions. Once that starts happening, you can think about working on the system as a whole. You drag out enough of the corrupt individuals, you will already have a good start on fixing the system.

          If you only work on fixing the system, the still-corrupt individuals will find ways around, somehow. They always do (they always have).

      • by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @12:22AM (#38886939) Homepage

        Exactly as I predicted when everybody here on Slashdot was insisting the would HAVE TO act.

        This is Obama, he need only make the promise. He doesn't have to DO anything.

        Are you seriously suggesting there should be a criminal investigation against anyone where 25,000 people call for it?

        This has nothing to do with Obama. it has everything to do with Federal prosecutors. Write a letter to both the FBI and the US Attorney's Office stating that you believe a crime has been committed that is within their jurisdiction and requesting they investigate. 25,000 letters like that might achieve something.

    • by epiphani ( 254981 ) <epiphani@ d a l . net> on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:34PM (#38886521)

      I'm ready to lock and load to get MY America back.

      So as someone from outside (I'm Canadian), I've come to the conclusion that the US will only solve it's issues that way. I'm truly saddened by it, and I hope it's quick and mostly bloodless, but I doubt it will be.

      I know it's not a popular idea, but you have to admit: the level of vitriol in the USA has hit unbelievable levels. It makes my head hurt - for both of the major parties. You don't have political options any more - the only one that is an ACTUAL choice away from more of the same is Ron Paul. Too bad he's so far out to lunch. You're headed towards civil war. And right now all the religions folks have all the guns. Oh the irony.

      I wish you the best of luck. Please, keep your military out of it, and protect your nukes while you sort this shiat out.

      • by evanism ( 600676 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:47PM (#38886625) Journal

        It's interesting that outsiders can see the inevitability of civil war isn't it?

        The level of hate, spite, vitriol and absolute us/them divide is obvious for all to see.

        Tiny issues, of no importance, or consequence, are raised to absolute exreme/hate issues. Devicive language, militarized police, extreme violence, ethnic hatred, extreme paranoia, social chaos, endless multiple wars, extremes in poverty/wealth and perverse legal and ethical injustice. There is no middle ground, its all one side or the other.

        It has ticked every single box for catastrophic upheaval.

        Frankly, I will be glad. The USA as an idea has failed its people and I'm tired of the US's enforced exported culture. It is vile.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by artor3 ( 1344997 )

      Don't be stupid. As soon as bullets start flying, the country is dead. It won't come back in your lifetime, or your kids' lifetimes for that matter. Technological advancement has brought us easily available explosives, which make clean revolutions absolutely impossible. So long as even 0.001% of the population doesn't like the new government, they can just start slaughtering people to force a change. The only reason they don't do so now is because it's seen as "unacceptable" and would be counterproduct

      • by AngryDeuce ( 2205124 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:52PM (#38886663)

        But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

        Revolution is our birthright as American citizens. Bloodless if possible, bloody if necessary. It is obvious that our government has been twisted against the people it is supposed to be representative of.

        I don't want to hurt anyone, but I will not be a victim. This isn't Iraq, and we're not terrified villagers living in stone age conditions. The people have been asleep for a long time, lulled into a false sense of security by greed and manipulation, but they're finally beginning to wake up, and it's about fucking time...

        It seems clear to me now that the last shred of what made this country great died on 9/11. The terrorists attacked us, but we finished the job all on our own.

        • by artor3 ( 1344997 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @12:18AM (#38886901)

          You think the Iraqis were "terrified villagers living in stone age conditions" prior to our showing up? How fucking clueless can you be?

          You're being melodramatic and angsty because it's fun to imagine yourself as a freedom fighter up against some great evil. Let's introduce some perspective. We're talking about some asshole senator who was bribed to help a few companies make more money off of us. Do you have any idea how often that has happened throughout our history? Can you name a single fucking decade in which that has not happened?

          But no, rather than accept that the country will always be messy and that we should do the best we can, you want to burn it all down. You want to kill because Hollywood has taught you that violence can solve all your problems. The scrappy rebels always win and ride off into the sunset.

          Grow up.

          • by AngryDeuce ( 2205124 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @01:11AM (#38887287)

            But no, rather than accept that the country will always be messy and that we should do the best we can, you want to burn it all down.

            No, I will not accept that. You want people to just shrug their shoulders and say "Meh, shit's fucked up, shit's always been fucked up, so fuck it?" Bullshit all over that. You be as complacent as you fucking want. I know we can do better.

            I don't want it to come to that point, I really don't. But like I said, I will not be a victim. I'm not going to sit idly by and watch our right to privacy be taken away, our right to free speech taken away, our right to freely move about the country taken away, our right to be secure both in our person and property taken away. Our own government has been doing this to us at a fever pitch for the last fucking decade, not fucking Al Qaeda, not Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein, not Iran, not China. This was our own fucking government doing this bullshit, across all three branches, and the people just repeated the same old litany "Well, if it makes us safer..."

            Fuck that bullshit. No more. Put your hands over your ears and keep repeating "it's not that bad, it's not that bad, it's not that bad..." if that's what you want to do, but forgive me and the millions of other people that actually believe in something better for not being quite ready to bend over and get fucked with the rest of the cattle.

            • by artor3 ( 1344997 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @01:21AM (#38887397)

              Sorry, but have you ever hear the little song behind the word "jingoism"?

              We don't want to go to war but by Jingo if we do
              We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too

              That's how you're coming across. "I don't want to kill people to get my way, but..."

              Things in this country aren't bad enough to warrant the sort of massive, decades long bloodshed you're talking about. Not even close. We can turn things around through peaceful means. You're looking at one tiny slice of history and declaring that this is the worst things have ever been. It's not. Not even close.

              Not long ago, a huge portion of the country was treated as subhuman while our leaders were playing with the idea of wiping out human civilization. We got through that, and we can sure as hell get through this. The only thing we need is the will to try. If all the people who have given up on politics were to get off their asses and vote in the general election AND THE PRIMARIES then we could fix this all in short order. But instead they figure that their one vote won't make a difference and so they don't bother. And then when their non-vote doesn't elicit change, they decide that the whole system is FUBAR'ed and start talking about mass murder to solve their problems. Can you really not see how stupid and self-defeating that is?

              • by AngryDeuce ( 2205124 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @02:05AM (#38887775)

                To get my way? I just want to be left the fuck alone! I want the government to stop listening in on my fucking phone calls, stop scraping my instant messages, stop trying to give me the fucking finger in the ass routine every time I have the audacity to get on an airplane, stop handing over my fucking tax dollars to goddamned Wall Street bankers, stop allowing these parasites we call "corporations" to put slaves across the world to work and bring their wares here for nothing while 1 in 5 of us are either unemployed or underemployed, stop allowing our infrastructure here to fucking fall apart while we're helping other countries build....

                The government has been wiping it's ass with the Bill of Rights for decades, but the last few years or so they've been ramping up. They see the writing on the wall. They know the jig is up, so they're making their last ditch cash/power grabs while enough people still have the faith in their government necessary to facilitate it. Once that's gone, it's all over. The locusts will pick up and move on to greener pastures while we fucking eat each other. The Occupy protests are going to look like a block party a year from now.

                I understand your point, I really do, but I truly believe it's too late for that now. We're stuck in a positive feedback loop. There's only going to be more civil disobedience, resulting in more of our rights being taken away, resulting in more civil disobedience, resulting in more rights taken away, resulting in more civil get my point. You may not share my opinions, but to be honest, I'd rather be prepared for that eventuality than not, and since buying more than 7 days worth of food or owning multiple guns is probably enough to get you on some government watch list (if me simply talking about my extreme dissatisfaction with my government as of late isn't enough), I'm probably fucked. But I am not going to be a victim.

                • by artor3 ( 1344997 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @02:41AM (#38888007)

                  It's not too late at all. We still have free elections. We can protest without the tanks rolling in. If you pay attention, then you saw what happened when the Iranians tried to have an election, and when they tried to protest. They are past the point of no return. We're not. But we will be if you get your civil war.

                  You could go out and get involved in activism. Find candidates who you trust, and push for them in primaries. They'll need to wear the brandname of one of the two political parties, but that's just a label. You can make a difference. It's just hard as hell.

                  Hollywood has conditioned us to want fast answers, typically through violence. No problem takes more than a few hours to resolve, and most can be resolved by shooting someone. That's not how real life works. It will take many years to climb out of the hole dug over the past few decades. But a civil war will take even longer, and be far less pleasant. You need to wrap your head around that. You've never lived though the sort of violent social upheaval you're describing, so maybe it's hard for you to imagine it. But look around the world. Take a good hard look at other countries that have undergone civil war in the past twenty years or so. Ask yourself if life in America is really worse than life in Iran or Iraq or Somalia or the Congo or Moldova or Sri Lanka.

      • by bky1701 ( 979071 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @12:15AM (#38886879) Homepage

        This "bullet box" rhetoric needs to end. The people who mod it up should be ashamed of themselves, and the people who post it ought to be on government watch lists.

        So, people saying what you don't like needs to put people on secret lists so they can be abused by the government while going about their legal business. Gotcha. I think I can see why you're not OK with the original idea.

        How about this: you don't deserve the freedom to post what you just did, and I think you need to be put on a list for conspiring to commit treason (by advocating violation of the constitution). If you can start deciding what is allowed, so can I. See how it works? Grow a brain.

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <> on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @01:01AM (#38887213) Homepage

        This "bullet box" rhetoric needs to end. The people who mod it up should be ashamed of themselves, and the people who post it ought to be on government watch lists.

        As a Canadian, it saddens me that there are Americans who don't even understand why the second amendment is enshrined in the constitution.

    • by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:54PM (#38886689) Homepage Journal

      the bloodshed you endorse is far, far worse

      little boys like you who have never known real revolution are historically illiterate fools. we will not have a revolution in this country until we are pushed much, much further. and that is a good thing

      you don't have the slightest fucking clue of the misery of what a real revolution really is like. i hate the very concept of intellectual property and i hate the plutocracy infecting the country i love. but i am no friend of yours, and the likes of you disgust me far more than chris dodd ever will. at least chris dodd won't lock and load and embrace borderline schizophrenic hollywood addled visions of "glorious" revolutionary bloodshed

      fuck you, you gunhappy tool. if we are ever to actually have real fascism in this country, people who think like you, all to ready and happy to grab a gun, will be at the vanguard of this country's collapse into it, guided by demagogues who know all too well how to pull the strings in your ignorant bloodlust drunk mind

      revolution means failure you asshole. you are supposed to fix the system, not start shooting people you

      have i made my disgust of your ignorant bloodlust clear? then grow the fuck up

    • We wont survive. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bensam123 ( 1340765 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @01:21AM (#38887387)
      America wont survive a revolution. The moment people start thinking like this is the moment people who ARE corrupt and are in seats of power at the moment can claim even more power on the grounds of insurgants, terrorists, and rebels are trying to corrupt our pure country. They'll ride their white horse and smear any sort of truth that can be mustered to bring people to the cause and then with their new claimed power they will strike back with the full force of military aid at their disposal and they have a lot of that currently.

      People armed with guns can't retake our country. This is a long cry from the civil war where all you had to do was pick up a musket and you'd be on relatively equal terms with the foe you're facing. They have military and strategic dominance on every level, not to mention they can do all sorts of underhanded things to make everyone involved disappear. I do believe such soldiers may turn sides, but it's highly unlikely. They country in and of itself has become too powerful to take back by a common citizen with a rifle. Such a imbalance of power would lead to an extremely bloody conflict with the people without it getting slaughtered in droves attempting to take it back from people with it. The american zeitgeist isn't ready for such a conflict either. We have too many differing opinions to split things down the middle and we easily get bored of things when it doesn't involve everyone dying around us.

      This is completely putting aside how it will turn the country upside down and leaves us open to people who would never dream of trying to take america going and doing it. You shouldn't think in such short sighted terms. Picking up a weapon and starting to shoot people without any forethought is a bad decision.

      You have to change things from the inside, bit by bit, piece by piece. Witch hunts need to be performed and we need something similar to the inquisition that will willingly investigate every part of the system (not the people) and burn the heretics retroactively. It needs to be done peacefully so when the side that gets power hungry and decides to use an iron fist they can be branded as such. So there is a right and wrong, so that the people can understand that one side is fighting for something better then power...

      When and IF this happens it will start to signify a new golden age for America, one that is founded on the future rather then making more money then the other person. We need to help each other rather then trying to drive each other in the dirt. Just because the country was founded with capitalism in mind, doesn't mean we need to stay that way. We are much better then that. It's the direction most first world countries are taking and it's the right one.
  • Alright (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jethro ( 14165 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:04PM (#38886245) Homepage

    So lets go ask specific law enforcement agencies.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It would have been nice if they reply atleast pointed us in the right direction.. who the fuck are we supposed to ask to look into this if not the Whitehouse?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by idbeholda ( 2405958 )
      You can't just go about doing that, you silly knave! There are policies! PROCEDURES! INSTITUTIONS!
  • Executive branch (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bayoudegradeable ( 1003768 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:05PM (#38886253)
    and here I was thinking the executive branch enforces the law.... guess I'm not so sharp.
    • by l0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:16PM (#38886357) Homepage Journal

      The Executive Branch delegates that to the Attorney General/US DOJ. Also, I see the lack of comment as a good thing, because if they didn't take this matter seriously, they'd have simply stated it had been dismissed out of hand. In this case though, it seems they do take it seriously.

      Keep in mind that no Police Investigation aside from those run by the Keystone Cops starts with a public announcement saying they will investigate.
      They say they are investigating *after* news outlets like CNN and FOX have reported that a bunch of FBI Agents raided offices and took away records and computers from those offices. Why give Dodd any more opportunity to hide, destroy evidence?

      • Re:Executive branch (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:22PM (#38886427)

        He probably didn't break the law, and that's the sad truth. There's a very fine line, maybe a smudge, between being paid for votes, and being paid because you support a platform. They amount to the same thing, at the end of the day, but one is illegal and the other isn't. What he said on Fox news was probably not illegal either, once put in this framework. It would shake my confidence if I ever had any.

    • Re:Executive branch (Score:4, Informative)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:17PM (#38886369)

      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.

      • Re:Executive branch (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:32PM (#38886511)

        people growing up, NOW, can realize this. the internet teaches much more of the truth than the textbooks or teachers (are allowed or will).

        we didn't have any kind of internet (not even BBS dialup, at the time) and our means to share info was very local and very limited. we were brought up in near total ignorance. 'trust authority'. all that stuff - that we now know is opposite and untrue.

        today, kids DO have the ability to hear more than one side of the story. well, for as long as the internet remains free...

        I hope that over the next 20 or so years, this generation weeds out the older guys and pushes thru a new style. I have zero hope for today's old rulers, but tomorrow's rulers could actually be from an informed base.

        and sadly, I think the old guys in charge know this, too. they want to milk things as they are for the next 5-25 years, until *they* die out. after that, they don't much care how the world runs. but they do want to keep the world and power base as it is right now.

        the struggle is: do we allow that and for how much longer?

        this is the class war. its real. its simmering, but its growing, to be sure.

        • by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @01:14AM (#38887319) Homepage

          More informed, really?

          There's a reason teachers don't teach details. It's because very few people can understand all the details of every field. Teachers and textbooks present simplified overviews of a field, so that interested students have a basic level of understanding to move on to further education later.

          This applies at every level. An elementary school teacher says "Congress makes laws". A High school teacher says "the committees of the House and Senate make bills, which are passes to become laws". A college professor says "The committees are influenced by lobbyists representing industries and activists who have interest in the bill" and in the real world, a politician finds that the committees are influenced by lobbyists, activists, legal precedent, and international treaties (which are themselves subject to a complicated procedure), and myriad other sources.

          This applies to every field. As more casual observers choose not to continue their education in a particular field, the study gets into more complex subjects. Knowing everything about everything is simply not possible today. There are too many fields with too much to know.

          Then, there's the Internet, with its vast availability of information. Surely, this will allow everyone to fully understand the complexities and nuances of every field, right? Absolutely not. There are few resources on the Web where one can go to study in adequate depth, and those arcane details are incomprehensible without the prior years of study to understand how all the details work together. Very few people want to devote that much time to studying online, so they'll abandon learning the complexity, and will simply follow the advice of some person or website they trust.

          Today, it appears that such trusted websites are predominantly social networks, where people hear the opinions of their peers, read a one-page summary of an issue, and instantly believe themselves qualified to debate it. This is why candidates with simple plans to fix everything get so much support from Internet-based grassroots movements, but can never gather support from the big corporations (who employ economic and political specialists who understand the complex consequences of the simple plans).

          People hear that the Federal Reserve Bank loaned out $16 trillion dollars without any special announcement, and they start rallying against the Fed for this policy of handing out money to banks. They flock to Ron Paul's banner, calling to eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank. The real story is that the $16 trillion figure was the cumulative total of one-day loans, meaning that a $100 loan for one month would be recorded as $3000, even though only $100 was loaned out, and $100 was paid back.

          The people in charge now understand the complexities of their fields, and the people in charge in the future will continue to understand the complexities of their fields. Hopefully, they will continue to ignore the uninformed masses, and take their short-sighted quick-fix plans with significant doses of salt.

          This is not to say that the Internet is useless. There is great potential for legitimate change to be effected via websites like the EFF's, where organizations with particular (and publicly-stated) goals can state their view on an issue, and the masses can donate their voice (by way of a petition signature and/or a monetary donation) to support the experts of the organization, who do understand the complexities involved.

    • by stms ( 1132653 )

      I sense sarcasm. The legislative branch doesn't actually enforce the law no but if the Obama administration publically (or privately) pushed for an investigation of this man it would happen.

  • by prehistoricman5 ( 1539099 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:05PM (#38886257)
    A group of people demands that a well known politician turned lobbyist get investigated for bribery. They know that they are all guilty of a little quid pro quo themselves so in order to save their own asses and job prospects after they leave office they don't investigate. This angers me though. I had high hopes for Obama forcing lobbyists to clean up their act, but he hasn't delivered. I was planning on voting for him simply because the Republican policies of ignoring science and cutting everything down to the bone disturb me, but now I think I'm going to vote third party.
    • by wonkavader ( 605434 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:10PM (#38886303)

      Who do you like in the parties of n > 2? I'm looking for a better option than Mickey Mouse, mostly because that nasty rodent's been buying politicians to keep himself under copyright for years.

      • Jill Stein?
      • If you're over 35, you can run yourself. Everyone in the country over 35 and who meets the other requirements is running all the time - you can vote for any of them by writing their name in.

        Don't throw your vote away by voting for a fictional character, at least vote for someone who, on the mad chance that enough others vote the same way, is actually eligible to serve. Or at the very least, is a person who exists and can produce reasonable facsimiles of the necessary documents after two and a half years.

  • Referred? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SandmanWAIX ( 674838 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:06PM (#38886271)
    But of course, they have referred the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency for enforcement?
    • by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @01:19AM (#38887369)

      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.



      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. []

      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). []

      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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:10PM (#38886313)

    The worst part about this petition and the result, is that it will get basically zero media coverage. All of the mainstream news organizations are tied into SOPA and the lobbyists just as tightly as Dodd.

  • What? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:11PM (#38886315)

    You can't petition to have someone arrested/investigated/incarcerated. Can you?

    If there's a suspicion of illegality, the law enforcement agency is the place to go, not the president. pffft

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Darkness404 ( 1287218 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:14PM (#38886345)
      ...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:What? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by JSBiff ( 87824 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:59PM (#38886741) Journal

        Executive Orders aren't laws. As the Executive, it's clear that he has a certain level of authority over the Executive Branch. Executive Orders simply are a mechanism by which the President exercises that Constitutionally granted authority over the Executive Branch.

        As the Commander-In-Chief of all U.S. forces, the president is within his authority to order military action against hostile military forces. Doesn't matter that some U.S. citizen has joined those forces. War doesn't stop because there's a traitor in the enemy camp.

        There's a clear distinction between a criminal who we should try to arrest if at all possible (and criminals do get killed by cops without a trial in similar circumstances, even on U.S. soil, where they are armed and resisting arrest), and enemy combatants who are engaged in armed conflict against our armed forces.

  • Darn (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:13PM (#38886335)

    Darn. If only there were a department we could go to in order to get justice. We could even fill it with lawyers who could prosecute people who broke the law. Put someone in charge of it who people couldn't mess with - like a government official or something.

  • by kenh ( 9056 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:14PM (#38886347) Homepage Journal

    We can petiition the White House to answer, on the record, any question as long as it is neither too specific NOR leads to a law enforcement action?

    And the point of this 'service' is what, exactly? To provoke the administration to opine about non-specific social issues?

    • by ktappe ( 747125 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:19PM (#38886401)

      And the point of this 'service' is what, exactly? To provoke the administration to opine about non-specific social issues?

      Apparently the point of the service is to make it look like the White House is listening to the people. Look like. Not actually are.

    • Its like everything else Obama has done, simple good PR to try to get him reelected. Taking questions via YouTube, holding "town hall" meetings of course none of this really matters, none of it is actually going to change anything its all done to make Obama seem like a nice, up to date president that cares about various issues when in reality all those are is nice good feeling fluff for the Obama campaign.
  • by voss ( 52565 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:30PM (#38886499)

    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.

  • by MarkvW ( 1037596 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:49PM (#38886635)

    The power to investigate is the power to DESTROY. Let that sink in.

    We don't want a society where the loudest bunch of shrieking zealots can pressure a criminal investigation by the mere weight of numbers. We've elected Obama and he's nominated holder and we've told him there's a big problem. We need to trust them to do the right thing.

    You might not like the idea of trusting them, but there isn't a better alternative.

  • by morgauxo ( 974071 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2012 @10:26AM (#38890903)
    Yes, the responses, when there are responses to petitions are usually pretty bad. No, as far as I know no specific policy has been the result of a petition. People are frustrated and there is even a petition to take the petitions more seriously.

    So what?

    The cutoff point for a response to a petition is 25,000 signatures. The Chris Dodd petition was somewhere around 35,000 the last I checked. Would you really want Obama to take decisive actions based on the will of 25-35,000 people? We (the US) are a nation of over 300 million individuals! How much say should a mere 10s of thousands have?

    However... 30 some thousand people bothered to sign it. Many probably had to go through the trouble to create accounts showing they cared more than just enough to click a link. Do you think this goes entirely unnoticed among the politicians? Please don't get me wrong, they are not going to suddenly become good. They are still getting all sorts of money and perks legal and otherwise from special interests including the movie and record industries. They can probably count on buying far more than 30,000 votes just by name recognition from the ads they can buy with lobbyist money. They aren't going to just throw that away. But they do know they can't be so bold about it. Elections are never more than 4 years away which means they will be considering both voters and campaign money. If we give up then the only voice they hear is the ones giving them the campaign money.

    The world is not going to change because of our little petitions but they will make some small difference. Even if it is only a little subconscious influence on politicians minds as they make decisions in the future that is something.

No extensible language will be universal. -- T. Cheatham