Oh Look, Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing...
from the no-conflict,-no-interest dept
It would appear that Rep. Mike Rogers, the main person in Congress pushing for CISPA, has kept rather quiet about a very direct conflict of interest that calls into serious question the entire bill. It would appear that Rogers' wife stands to benefit quite a lot from the passage of CISPA, and has helped in the push to get the bill passed. It's somewhat amazing that no one has really covered this part of the story, but it highlights, yet again, the kind of activities by folks in Congress that make the public trust Congress less and less.It has seemed quite strange to see how strongly Rogers has been fighting for CISPA, refusing to even acknowledge the seriousness of the privacy concerns. At other times, he can't even keep his own story straight about whether or not CISPA is about giving information to the NSA (hint: it is). And then there was the recent ridiculousness with him insisting that the only opposition to CISPA came from 14-year-old kids in their basement. Wrong and insulting.
Of course, as we've noted all along, all attempts at cybersecurity legislation have always been about money. Mainly, money to big defense contractors aiming to provide the government with lots of very expensive "solutions" to the cybersecurity "problem" -- a problem that still has not been adequately defined beyond fake scare stories. Just last month, Rogers accidentally tweeted (and then deleted) a story about how CISPA supporters, like himself, had received 15 times more money from pro-CISPA group that the opposition had received from anti-CISPA groups.
So it seems rather interesting to note that Rogers' wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was, until recently, the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a "security" defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department. The company describes itself as "a leading private security company, provides government and corporate clients with a full spectrum of intelligence-led, culturally-sensitive security solutions to operational and development challenges around the world."
Hmm. Sounds like a company like that would benefit greatly to seeing a big ramp up in cybersecurity FUD around the globe, and, with it, big budgets by various government agencies to spend on such things. Indeed, just a few months ago, Rogers penned an article for Washington Life Magazine all about evil hackers trying to "steal information." In it, there's a line that might sound a wee-bit familiar, referring to the impression of hackers as being "the teenager in his or her parent's basement with bunny slippers and a Mountain Dew." Apparently, both of the Rogers really have a thing about teens in basements. The article is typical FUD, making statements with no proof, including repeating the NSA's ridiculous allegation that hackers have led to the "greatest transfer of wealth in American history." It's such a good line, except that it's completely untrue. The top US companies have recently admitted to absolutely no damage from such attacks. The article also lumps in "hacktivists" like Anonymous, as if they're a part of this grand conspiracy that needs new laws.
Tellingly, in the print version of Washington Life that this article appeared in, which you can see embedded below, you'll note that there's a side bar right next to her article about the importance of passing cybersecurity legislation in Congress. Guess what's not mentioned anywhere at all? The fact that Kristi Rogers, author of the fear-mongering article, happens to be married to Rep. Mike Rogers, the guy in charge of pushing through cybersecurity legislation. That sure seems like a rather key point, and a major conflict of interest that neither seemed interested in disclosing. Oh, and Kristi Rogers recently changed jobs as well, such that she's now the "managing director of federal government affairs and public policies" at Manatt a big lobbying firm, where (surprise, surprise) she's apparently focused on "executive-level problem solving in the defense and homeland security sectors." I'm sure having CISPA in place will suddenly create plenty of demand for such problem solving.
A few months ago, on one of his FUD-filled talks about why we need cybersecurity, Rogers claimed that it was all so scary that he literally couldn't sleep at night until CISPA was passed due to an "unusual source" threatening us. The whole statement seemed odd, until you realize that his statement came out at basically the same time as his wife's fear-mongering article about cybersecurity. I guess when your pillow talk is made up boogeyman stories about threats that don't actually exist, it might make it difficult to fall asleep.
Either way, even if we assume that everything here was done aboveboard -- and we're not suggesting it wasn't -- this is exactly the kind of situation that Larry Lessig has referred to as soft corruption. It's not bags of money shifting hands, but it appears highly questionable to the public, leading the public to trust Congress a lot less. At the very least, in discussing all of this stuff, when Mrs. Rogers is writing articles that help the push for CISPA, it seems only fair to disclose that she's married to the guy pushing for the bill. And when Mr. Rogers is pushing for the bill, it seems only right to disclose that his wife almost certainly would benefit from the bill passing. And yet, that doesn't seem to have happened... anywhere.
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: cispa, conflicts of interest, cybersecurity, kristi rogers, lobbying, mike rogers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, but, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
My opinion is that Rogers is just plain fascist: what you allege of his wife's (incremental, she's already getting heaps of money) interests in this probably don't affect him at all.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike fights CISPA without mentioning major data sources Google and Facebook.
02:17:14[c-290-5]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
Blue, your method is to unzip your trousers, smack people in the face with the rubber tube that replaced your dick, and not show any counter-evidence at all.
And you wonder why we mock you all the time. I see you still haven't taken even the simplest steps of protecting your user-name, despite screaming about how we were "stealing" it multiple times. I see you're just like your copyright cartel paymasters: lazy and expecting everyone else to do the job of protecting what you deem important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
1) I'm from Ireland (having stated so many times) where, unlike the US, guns aren't exactly common (I'm 24 years old and have never seen a real one)
2) It would be next to impossible for me to identify blue.
Thus, my death threat was obviously not to be taken seriously.
Blue, it is your own actions that have reduced you to a laughable caricature of a human being. You literally have no-one to blame but yourself. You regularly contradict yourself and make ad-hom attacks (unlike this article, where Mike shows means, motive and opportunity for corruption) without any hard evidence whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
I mean...how? What method did you use to determine where a discussion you had with Mike was, on what article and when? You don't have a signed in account here, so it's not as simple as going to that and going backwards through your comments to find that article.
No, the only method I can think of is that you are neurotic enough that anytime Mike actually does respond to you...you bookmark that page or make some sort of note of it. I can see you at the computer, constantly typing away and making your useless comments and then...bam! You get a response, shriek in rage, excitement and joy (because honestly, I can picture feeling all three emotions at once), jumping out of your seat, grabbing a notebook and pen and scribbling furiously at it. In fact, this is what I picture you to be (just mute the audio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv4E9175EOY
So tell me...how did you come up with that link, without looking like Mikami in that video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
Interesting...yet, unsurprising. Explains a lot about the way you act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
It's so overflowing with irony that I genuinely laughed!
My opinion is that Rogers is just plain fascist: what you allege of his wife's (incremental, she's already getting heaps of money) interests in this probably don't affect him at all.
Your opinion is as loopy and twisted as your comments here. First you are attacking him with the label fascist in the same manner you seem to be criticizing Mike in your first paragraph! That gotta be some serious psychiatric disorder. The cognitive dissonance is overwhelming! And then you further stick your head into the psychiatric case study target by denying his wife affects him when it's crystal clear that this may be happening yes.
Just wow ootb. Go find professional help, you need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
And for what it's worth...I've said things similar before. Hitler did restore the German economy where all the other post WW1 German governments had failed...if you ignore the fact he did so through a mixture of slave labour and removal of worker's rights and destruction of trade unions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
Yeah, Hitler did get the German economy going, but so what? If I had a choice of living under Hitler or the Germany before Hitler, I'd choose the latter. Freedom means a lot more to me than the economy. Blue's praise of Hitler just shows to me he isn't a populist that cares for the people. That's all a charade he puts on. He claims he's for the little guy, against big corporations, etc, but he's for government granted monopolies and knocks Mike any time Mike talks about government corruption or the like.
Like "The Prince", or Hitler, Blue like his subtle form of evil. Pretend to be for the people, when you really just want to rule over them completely.
Note: I'm not accusing Blue of supporting Holocaust Hitler or warmongering Hitler. I'm pointing out that blue praises fascist Hitler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
...who are working for companies directly profiting from their husbands' work, boy.
OotB is proof positive that there should be an intelligence test for posting to blogs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And they wonder why their approval rating is so low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The only reason they still hold the house is due to gerrymandering, and yet they think it was not the message or their platform, but the way their message was conveyed.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just not from people to hackers, but rather through 'Cyber-Security' contracts and lobbying.. :D.
[ 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:
But the word hacker by itself is not inherently good or bad. It just describes a skilled person when dealing with electronics in general. Although you could consider turning a small truck into a jeep some sort of mechanical hacking or something. It all depends on how loosely you use the word heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
AWESOME!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a 'security' defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department."
Reconcile the two quotes please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hope that helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did I read this right?
In that embedded pdf, the author of the article is a Kristi M. Rogers. Is that the same person? Am I reading this right? Please let me know if I am wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did I read this right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did I read this right?
Hope that clears things up. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did I read this right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And HOC is definitely one of the best shows in many years. So incredibly good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG!
/sarcasm off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I was gonna cynically ask if maybe the people in government could see the bill for what it is and just be OK with it. They know they'll get theirs, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Put yourself in their position. Wouldn't you steer a few million to yourself if you could? of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very disgusted at this Government.soon the people will have had enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course you are, Mike. Give me a break. So fucking dishonest.
And when Mr. Rogers is pushing for the bill, it seems only right to disclose that his wife almost certainly would benefit from the bill passing.
You never explained how she would benefit. If she's no longer with the company, how would she benefit? Talk about FUD.
nd yet, that doesn't seem to have happened... anywhere.
If Rogers had disclosed the conflict, where would he disclose it to? Do you even know? Or are you just spouting your usual anti-government, hated-fueled, moronic dipshit FUD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ly believe in what she's preaching, that hackers will cause the end of the world unless CISPA passes.
What Mike is discussing here is the "soft corruption", the appearance of corruption, the "revolving doors" between industry, politics, and lobbying groups.
I'm going to spell it out as simply as possible, so that you can have NO excuse for not understanding.
Woman A works for a company that stands to gain financially if the government passes legislation that leads to more contracts with companies like the one she works in. That gives her a motive to want legislation like this passed.
Her means is to quit her job (I guess to ostensibly avoid any appearance of conflict of interest) and joins a lobbying group. Stories of favours being traded, of promises of jobs and people going from industry to politics to lobbyist to industry to politics to lobbyist are all too common.
Her opportunity just happens to come in the form of her HUSBAND, the guy pushing this bill. Even if she honestly believes in the bill, that it will save the world, and even if he honestly believes in the bill, the facts are that there is at the least the appearance of corruption going on.
So go on. Which is more likely? That this lady out of the goodness of her heart just happened to lobby for legislation that will aid her friends in a certain industry financially and her husband just happened to be the politician pushing for it?
Or that there is corruption going on, which is all too common on Capitol Hill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"What is her current conflict of interest?" (Despite being told about revolving doors and the fact her husband is the one pushing for this bill...the article is more about his appearance of a conflict of interest)
As for where Rogers would report it to? I dunno...his peers? He could stand up in the House and say "Oh by the way, I've gotta disclose the fact my wife is a lobbyist for an industry she recently worked for that would benefit greatly if this bill I'm pushing passes" with cameras in his face and reporters holding a million microphones in front of him.
Do you even know the meaning of FUD? FUD is when something lacks substance. This article DOESN'T. Mike has gone to some lengths to lay it out. It's not like anything here is a lie. So go on. Where's the FUD? Is Rogers married? Was that a lie? Did his wife actually work for an industry that will benefit from this bill?
Ya know what this reminds me of? A certain former French president introduced a tax on blank media, and a portion of that tax would go to artists. I suppose the fact his wife was a professional singer signed to a record label was just a big coincidence wasn't it? It's very similar to what's happened here. A wife stands to benefit financially from legislation, whether overtly now or covertly later (it is very likely that Mrs. Rogers has been promised a job back in the same industry later, with a much higher paycheck) if her husband ensures legislation gets passed and signed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Heck, the Supreme Court will let a decision go 4-4 rather than have a member with a conflict cast a vote. But then, the Court actually cares about the appearance of conflicts of interest. Congress, apparently, does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But then what's new?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if we disregard financial gains and assume goodwill it's the same as letting the Pope push for bills that ban condoms just because the Church frowns on them along with their billion catholics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 18th, 2013 @ 7:06am
[quote]
[Dismissal x3]
[quote]
[Error 404: could not find "common knowledge"][Dismissal]
[quote]
[Question][Assumption that author cannot answer said question][Dismissal]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Executives are allowed some fraud, but the have to disclose it FIRST. Then its ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"You never explained how she would benefit"
She was the former CEO and president of a company that may stand to benefit greatly if her husband's plan is passed. There's a possibility that her package included some form of share or remaining connection to the company, or that she has close friends and colleagues who will thank her for their profit later on.
Even if she has managed to sever all ties and no longer has any connection, that has only happened very recently - the legislation was introduced 18 months ago. Even if no conflict of interest currently exists, it damn well did exist for over a year from the time the bill was introduced to the time she left Aegis. Her jumping ship before the bill stands to pass does not remove the conflict that was happening while she was still employed there.
Your dishonesty is as transparent as ever.
"FUD"
You're the expert, although you still seem hazy about what it really means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First question to ask of Jolly "Mike" Rogers
Second question to ask is
Were you a 14 year old in the basement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's par for the course. Hell, even when this country was facing an economic crisis, thanks to the housing market crash, an emergent "bailout" couldn't get passed unless it was including benefits to make someone else rich.
I hate our government. I really, really hate our government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait. She has a conflict of interest because her former employer may benefit from the passage of CISPA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, look for LLC on http://www.manatt.com/Clients.aspx
You'll be surprised ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or maybe the job will go to the husband.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly. Dipshit FUD Boy never cites for us the rule on disclosures of conflicts of interests, and he never explains how her prior employment creates such a conflict. Nor does he even bother to explain how he determined that this conflict, if there even was one, wasn't disclosed. This is just a stupid, angry attempt to discredit a sitting Representative based on nothing but FUD and idiocy. Mike Masnick has struck again. What a fucking idiot. And of course he won't defend any of this in the comments. He's too busy writing his next brain-dead hitpiece for his idiot followers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please use this doll and tell us where the mean man touched you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because he doesn't need to. Because, unlike you and the rest of your ilk, his readers are intelligent and educated, and able to figure out what he's left out.
And what do you mean by "wasn't disclosed"? Did Rogers in fact stand up in the House and say "By the way, my wife is a lobbyist who has friends in the industry who will gain financially to the tune of BILLIONS, with a B, if this legislation passes...and yes, she is withholding sex from me unless I do everything in my power to get this passed". If he did disclose, provide proof that Mike is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So smart people just throw out FUD about a sitting Congressman violating the House Ethics Rules without actually presenting evidence that a violation occurred? LOL!
And what do you mean by "wasn't disclosed"?
There are procedures for disclosing conflicts of interest, dipshit. I thought you were "intelligent and educated"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You basically said that Mike lied when he said that the conflict of interest wasn't disclosed. If it was, as you are implying, then provide some proof. Otherwise your claims lack merit and are meaningless.
Also, we don't need to be told about the exact rule for disclosing conflicts of interest whenever someone reports that there potentially could be one. So I don't know why you are harping on about Mike not mentioning the precise rules and procedures. Mike doesn't need to. For the purposes of his article, he just needs to say "I've got Politician A here, he's the main guy behind Legislation B, he's married to Woman C who just so happened to work for Industry D that will make a ton of money if Legislation B passes". Are the rules as simple as standing up in the house and going "My wife is a lobbyist lobbying for this bill, I can't vote or introduce this bill or do anything, cause then there's the appearance at the very least of a conflict of interest".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A group of which you are a part of, apparently:
You follow (stalk, actually) him, and you are an idiot. QED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
outsider who thinks he is an insider
The DoD systems I work daily to protect get pummelled by intrusion attempt (foreign and domestic).
My friends in the private sector tell me of intrusions that have stolen everything from customer lists to plans for upcoming product releases. But they have been told not to divulge these intrusions due to stock market worries.
For a person who has a company that claims to be about insight, I would recommend speaking from facts not opinions in regards to the need for cyber security.
Your opinions of the Senator and his wives possible benefits may be true. But your assertions that the need for improved cyber security are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
Secondly, alot of these "intrusions" are human error, weak security systems, or just plain unsecured systems, or a leak from within rather than without.
All I see is bleating for increased cyber security to protect from those minor threats. Or perhaps the omnipresent DDOS attack, which will be launched by Anonymous in 20xx, the year of megaman, which will take out all our security grids.
And thirdly, these things are obviously being dealt with NOW, it is not the job of the government to make things EASIER for itself when it comes to violating peoples rights. Those rights are supposed to be difficult to get past for a reason, because it is part of fundamental liberties. Cybersecurity has nothing to do with hoovering up personal information, and alot of it could be done with the advent of just "implementing basic security protocols".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
Are you criticizing Mike for the "boogeyman"? If so, he's the one talking about the politicians who are screaming about a boogeyman.
Also, what does your last sentence mean? The need for improved security? Surely, basic steps at protecting digital information can be used, all without needing legislation. It's not like people are leaving their front doors unlocked, thieves are strolling in taking what they will and then magically a new law passes that somehow by virtue of its existence stops all of this...when all you have to do is take basic steps to protect yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
The DoD systems I work daily to protect get pummelled by intrusion attempt (foreign and domestic).
I don't deny that there are intrusion attempts, or that they're going on all the time. I question how *serious* those attempts are or how much damage they could actually do. To date, they have not done that much damage.
My friends in the private sector tell me of intrusions that have stolen everything from customer lists to plans for upcoming product releases. But they have been told not to divulge these intrusions due to stock market worries.
Again there is little to no evidence to support this, and companies have reported no serious losses. If this was as horrible as you claim, we'd see some impact from it.
Furthermore, at no point has anyone explained how this new legislation will actually help to stop attacks or why the information sharing was not currently allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
Please explain how his wife has a current conflict of interest because of her former job. Or can you not even back up this stupid assertion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
1) At the very least there is the appearance of a conflict of interest, as the article was explicit in stating.
2) Mr. Rogers, as a member of Congress, is a public servant and his job is to work for the public interest. Wether or not there is a law or rule or procedure codified for this exact situation, there is an ethical duty for Mr. Rogers to disclose to the public he serves of the potential of a conflict of interest.
3) He did not disclose it to the public he represents.
Right and wrong are ethical concepts and not directly accounted for in all laws. He may not have done anything illegal, but what he has done is ethically wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone willing to file a complaint with the Ethics committee?
I'd be willing to do it, but I feel like whoever does so should be more knowledgeable about this than I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interpretation....
"..."My Wife" threatening me..." if I don't get this passed....
Who in their right mind wants to piss off their wife? What's billions of wasted dollars in vaporware threats compared to an angry wife?
Just saying....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A-Holes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trust less?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CISPA
I can't help but believe if this CISPA bill had the word gun or arms associated with it, it never would have even reached the floor of the House for a vote, let alone been passed.
Such typical, two-faced responses from House members who fear what the government would do with a database of information on gun owners, but will gleefully approve any limitations on privacy as it relates to other spheres, such as the Internet. All in the name of the War on Terror (despite the fact that guns have been used to terrorize, and kill, more Americans than terrorists ever have or will).
Why am I not surprised by their duplicity, hypocrisy and shameless, obsequious kowtowing to the lobbying industry (both for guns and the military-industrial complex) in this country?
What a joke Congress is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In basement raping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link
Craft International was providing "security" at the Boston bombing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Rogers' wife and CISPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Roger's Neighborhood
It's a frightening day in the neighborhood,
A 14 year old's hacking my neighborhood,
Won't you spy on my neighbor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cyber hygiene?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dunno
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
196 repubs voted for it (CISPA) and only 29 against. 92 dems for it; 98 against. These are worthless traitors to this country and the wonderful law of it. Enough said.
The lack of respect to their fellow man is astounding. They will get their very deserved punishment. If the excuse is made that these have no clue what they are doing, they should actually read the bill #1, or have no place serving people in the government #2. Don't worry about repubs seeking to destroy gun rights. They are going all in on the hopes of destroying the 4th as well. See the dream instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
REAL LIFE HOUSE OF CARDS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
18 USC § 208
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You called it early Mike Masnick !!!
Looks like Mike Rogers is again jumping on the evil hackers trying to "steal information bandwagon you talked about in your article.
Great way to foresee the future and soft corruption in action again.
I stumbled on this article just today and could not believe how truthful it is now after Mike Rogers latest tweet. Keep up the great writing.
Tom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most branches..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Based on my years of study I am confident what appears at first to be an organized campaign of borderline defamatory rumor mongering is, in fact, a completely unintentional misunderstanding. This is much more common than you might suspect due to the difficulty in translating from that species' significantly more nuanced and sophisticated communication into the crude and limited vocabulary used by us ordinary folk.
It is impossible for me to definitively identify the subtleties of Mike Rogers' staffers, not having witnessed the exchange personally. I can, however, provide some insight about how the benign behavior of these elegant creatures is often misunderstood by ordinary people. In the spirit of furthering relations between our two species I will endeavor to do so. I will also attempt to replicate the delicate nuance of their language in the hope increased exposure to it will increase your understanding.
Let's start with the alleged comments by Representative Rogers' staffers to a Michigan reporter insinuating, but likely falling just short of actually accusing, Mike Masnick of defamation. There are many ways to characterize his staffers' actions. In some places it would be called innuendo, half truth, or perhaps even lying. A blogger with a legal background and significant experience in First Amendment defense, Ken White at Popehat for example, might refer to it as censorious thuggery. Such a person might even go so far to call it douchebaggery. On this very thread it has been described as corruption.
On Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday.
If you go back to the original Techdirt pieces which led to this reaction you will notice a similar communications gap. On July 26 Mike characterized Mike Rogers' selective and out of context quotes about Supreme Court precedents misleading.
On Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday.
A day earlier Mike called out Representative Rogers for conflating different NSA programs to paint a rosy picture which is entirely and categorically false.
Once again, on Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday. I could go on but in every case the comparison would ultimately be the same.
You might agree with me that Mike Rogers, purely for personal gain, blindly supports government programs which are clearly and blatantly unconstitutional. Like me you might suggest Mike Rogers is a typical crony capitalist, irreversibly corrupted by the lure of power, prestige, and a likely future of wealth and comfort lobbying for the equally corrupt corporations he has thrown his support behind. In fact you may believe, as I do, that his public statements alone easily meet the Constitutional criteria for impeachment and his protestations to the contrary amount to nothing more than a claim of first degree butthurt.
Try to remember, though, that he truly does not understand any of that. In Mister Rogers' Neighborhood it's just Tuesday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]