White House Says It Can't Comment On Possible Chris Dodd Investigation
from the no-surprise-there dept
This isn't a huge surprise, but following the popularity of the petition asking the White House to investigate Chris Dodd (after Dodd's own statements suggesting that he expects politicians who get Hollywood money to pass Hollywood's preferred bills no questions asked), the White House has officially stated that it can't comment on the matter. As per the terms of the White House's "We the People" petition site, it can refuse to address issues that deal with law enforcement:consistent with the We the People Terms of Participation and our responses to similar petitions in the past, the White House declines to comment on this petition because it requests a specific law enforcement action.I'm sure the White House has no interest in getting involved in this in any way, and that if it was actually investigating any of this activity, it wouldn't want to talk about it publicly until later. Still, I think the petition -- and the publicity it got -- did serve a key purpose: to highlight the public's disgust with the MPAA's form of crony capitalism, and the hubris of folks like Chris Dodd who think that as long as they donate enough money, politicians should be working for the MPAA, rather than the public.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bribery, chris dodd, petition, white house
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Word play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Word play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Word play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Word play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Word play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Word play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Word play
Anyone else notice that the 'other option' of the current administration seems to be a constant train-wreck of a contest to see who can be bat-shit crazier, thereby getting more people to vote Obama back in again? Almost like someone out there wants to keep the status-quo as long as possible?
"hey everyone... look how craaaazy your other options are! A bunch of nutty bible-beating scary's! Those would be much worse than a Kenyan Socialist Commie!"
Now go cast that vote which has never mattered because your election isn't based on the general popular majority and is instead based on the Electoral College and this whole Primary Party Vote and one candidate-per-party thing is not listed anywhere in the constitution. But never mind that! vote vote vote!!! You're an American hating TERRORIST who not only doesn't support our troops, but actively causes them to DIE if you don't vote. And you hate puppies.
Crap. Dropped my tinfoil hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Word play
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two Simple Solutions
- Mass requests to congress (a la SOPA, though maybe a little less pushy)
- Create a site for action (see americancensorship, this can likely be done over night)
- Guide the public with unbiased and non-skewed facts
- Cause at least a congressional inquiry by individual members of congress
- Cause congress to critically consider who they represent (again)
- Mass requests to highest law enforcement authority possible
- Start with a petition to the whitehouse (FAILED, but try again I guess...)
- Proceed to the state level (CA, you whore!)
- Move on to DA's and ADA's who have jurisdiction
- Include racketeering and fraud to the list of possible charges
- End with a wake up call to the MAFIAA to get their shit in gear (and maybe, you know, innovate a little or serve their customers some)
/lists-are-cool[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Simple Solutions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Simple Solutions
and what rock did you crawl up from under? Government presenting the public with unbiased facts? Only in your imagination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two Simple Solutions
Please Keep The ACTA Debate Fact-Based
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120130/21440417593/please-keep-acta-debate-fact-based .shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two Simple Solutions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Simple Solutions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the petition did was show that there are some vengeful little children out there pissed off that Megaupload got taken down, and now they want to get back at Dodd.
WTG kiddies. Now go back to bed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course over there in Shillville where you lobbyists live you think that is the norm. One day it'll bite you in the backside and you'll be either living off welfare checks or getting cabbage soup from the local kitchen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It doesn't really show much more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Huh - your response to a public outcry about corruption is to insult the public!
Have you learnt nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems brave to call out 4chan when you think your hiding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You would like that more than anything else at this point wouldn't you? You fear this new type of activism and wish that the internet populace would go quietly back to watching their cat videos. You fear it because you can never control it or use it, because in order for an uprising like the SOPA protests to happen, the message needs to be righteous at it's core. About all you can do is try to marginalize and minimize and that is becoming more and more apparent all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Brought together by modern telecommunications, the party of We can be seen as a bunch of do gooding, protectors of the innocent, light in the darkness, ally to good, nightmare to the oppressor types(1)."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fact why don't you and your friends just go ahead and move to your assisted living communities and leave the rest of us to fix this mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I contacted my congresscritter, I signed petitions, I boycott, I bore people to tears about IP run amok and what it can mean for this country and them personally.
Don't fall into the trap of old vs. young. It's about mindset, not age. It's about abuse of power and refusal to adapt to market disruption and entrenched players clutching for control at the expense of all others and it enrages me too. The internet is the greatest communication tool to arrive in my lifetime and I know it. Those that would control it know it too, and it SCARES THEM TO DEATH.
Their actions are more easily exposed, they know they'll go up like flashpaper when the rocks they hide under are flipped and the sunlight hits them. Their own words do them in, and those words never go away, the internet doesn't forget, the internet keeps it all there, it's an organism, a collective brain that can't be lobotomized.
They can't hide and I think it's been too long in coming. And I'm old! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree. Let's not drift into ageism on this stuff. It's too important. I am a grandfather and I'm fighting these battles so my grandchildren may have a better future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Such an admission of guilt must be investigated no matter who you represent...unless you do not believe in a free and fair society and the application of justice (no matter how rich you are)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, he went on record stating:
(a) donations had been made to the campaign
(b) that they had helped support the person to get elected, and
(c) if they were unable to provide support for their causes, they would stop doing A and B.
Which is pretty much what every group and individual does in donating to a campaign.
Example: If you gave money to the Obama campaign and helped get him elected, and he doesn't do the things you hoped he would do, perhaps next time you will give money to Ron Paul or Romney. If you state in public "Obama, pay attention to my needs or my next donation is to someone else", are you threatening anyone, or just stating fact?
The lack of a comment from the Whitehouse on this petition is only that, a lack of a comment. Not commenting doesn't suggest anything beyond them not having a comment.
31,000 signatures for something that was spewed all over 4chan, reddit, and the like is pathetic, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are threatening them, of course. But that's not mutually exclusive with stating a fact.
Dodd's statement lays bare the overt corruption of the system. That the system is corrupt is not Dodd's fault, although that he plays the game also makes him corrupt.
The real problem is that campaign donations are so important to politicians that they can be used as bribes in the first place. In a healthy democracy, campaign money wouldn't have that kind of pull. Voting would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To get back at Dodd, is this a tacit admission that Dodd did in fact do something wrong for us to get back at him for? Did he do something against the public interest? Do you not think that (his) bad behavior should be punished?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2647875&cid=38887369
No. The petition asked for the wrong thing. (Score:5, Informative)
by tlambert (566799) on Wednesday February 01, @12:19AM (#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.
.
hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#The_federal_impeach ment_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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i dont know.........is that even possible?
My recomendation, be as vague as possible, as that seems to be the only lingo they'll listen to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
-Captain Jack White^H^H^H^H^HSparrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://youtu.be/GI6CfKcMhjY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"the White House declines to comment on this petition because it requests a specific law enforcement action"
I think it would have been more truthful if they had said:
"the White House declines to comment on this petition because it requests law enforcement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But isn't that what the Executive Branch is supposed to do?
It seems like it would be in the DoJ realm of authority to ensure no backroom deals with a lobbyist were illegal and the only way you do that is to start an investigation. Hell, you already have the confession, what more to you need to prosecute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But isn't that what the Executive Branch is supposed to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But isn't that what the Executive Branch is supposed to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law enforcement action? Oh, please forgive us for seeking remedial steps in an attempt to prevent the reign of madness.
Weapons of mass destruction.. indeed.
Accountability. Integrity. Duty. Justice. Honesty. Truth. Have I left anything relevant off of the "Do Not Disturb" list?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe that's better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thankyou
vote obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
thankyou
vote obama/romney/gingrich/santorum/paul
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vote obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The White House didn't do anything. They declined to comment on it, because of content. They have no other comments. They have no statements. They didn't say it has any merit. They didn't say they support it. They didn't say anything is happening at all. THEY SAID NOTHING.
What Mike has done is get you guys in a tizzy by setting up the post to make it look like the White House is hiding something, that there is something going on, and they refused to comment on it because there is some sort of ongoing investigation. There is none of that sort of thing that exists, not even a suggest of it.
Mike has got you idiots wrapped around his finger so tight, that when he picks his nose, you guys think he is moving a mountain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You've shown me the light, hallelujah, Im going back to listening and nodding to everything my goevernment says, because i know at least there i will hear truthfull things on subjects that will affect me in a positive way, and that no preferential treatment will be given to certain entities, and last but not least i know that when we as a people bring an issue up to our governement they will at least have the common decency to respond
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So naturally you pretend that Mike tried to spin-doctor this into a conspiracy coverup, and you assumed that the comments were going in conspiracy theorist mode.
As opposed to...Mike saying that this petition wasn't expected to go anywhere in the first place, and commenters saying "well that sucks".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VP sez "Senator Dodd is one of my best friends in life"
�Senator Dodd is one of my best friends in life.�.�.�. Jill and I wish Chris and Jackie the best as they move on to their next endeavors and know the future holds only great things for their family.�
����� ��Joe Biden, Statement by Vice President on Senator Chris Dodd, January 6, 2011
�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama: "Best Wishes" for Dodd
�Michelle and I extend our thanks to Senator Dodd for his service to our Nation and offer our best wishes for the future to him and his family.�
����� ��Barack Obama, Statement by the President, January 6, 2011
�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ever get the feeling
a) protect the children
b) stop terrorism
c) stop piracy
d) stop terrorist-pirates
e) stop child terrorists.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cannot Comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]