WHY all of a sudden is Greg Palast being trashed? BTW I know he's not BRITISH

[seemslikeadream]

I thought I knew what sarcasm meant


Why is RFK Jr. word not good enough for some people? I don't ever remember anyone trashing him here BEFORE THESE EMAILS where discovered that seem to prove the Elections of 2000 and 2004 were stolen....by caging the black vote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=987312&mesg_id=988179



....I’ll be meeting with the Justice Department, Chairman Conyers and others — on an investigation even more important than ‘caging,’ persecuted prosecutors, or anything Mr. Drat can imagine … something, Mr. Drat that makes me very dangerous indeed to this regime.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=987312&mesg_id=987312


A STOLEN ELECTION MIGHT NOT BE WELCOME NEWS TO SOME PEOPLE

WHAT ELSE MIGHT NOT BE SUCH WELCOME NEWS TO SOME PEOPLE


HIGH STAKES GAMES GOING ON HERE I THINK

[Sadie5]

1. I have noticed the trashing too

along with Greg Palast Cindy Sheehan has also had a good dose of trashing. These two folks have done a lot for our side, we should remember that.

[seemslikeadream]

3. You'd think Palast had quit the Democratic Party

Hard to do since he's British :sarcasm:

[Fredda Weinberg]

6. Palast ain't British

And he doesn't always tell the truth either. And I should know ... he's taking credit for my work these days.

[seemslikeadream]

13. Do tell Fredda

Do tell, what work would that be? Are you suing him?

[Fredda Weinberg]

19. Why should I sue him? Will that bring my mother back?

It broke her heart to see my illustration in Harper's without attribution. For the record, it was my initiative that "cracked" the Florida files - and Palast admitted as much on his website.

Pray tell? For example, he went around linking the scrub with Harris, when he knew damn well the deed was done before she took office. Fortunately, the evidence (my statistical analysis) was strong enough that the debacle wasn't repeated.

So what if Rove was involved in the US attorney filings? Even caging, despicable as it was, isn't necessary illegal - and I've seen no legal opinion that says it was.

I care about truth ... that's why I agreed to work with Palast in the first place. But his unwillingness to stick to the known facts doesn't do anything to help us and can only hurt those who trust him.

[seemslikeadream]

25. Caging is not illegal?

suppressing the Black vote is not illegal?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-13-votingrights_x.htm

[Fredda Weinberg]

28. Challenging votes is not illegal. The method may be despicable

but I've seen nothing that violates any state or federal law of which I'm aware. Have you found a legal opinion to the contrary?

[blogslut]

30. singling out voters to challenge, by race

that is legal?

[Fredda Weinberg]

37. According to press reports, they were recently registered

and I saw the spreadsheet ... nothing identifies according to race. Where did you get that impression?

[blogslut]

42. Palast's folks called them up

n/t

Also, I'm sorry your illustrations weren't credited but wouldn't that be Harper's fault?

[seemslikeadream]

31. You didn't read my post AGAIN Fredda

SURPRESSING THE BLACK VOTE = ILLEGAL

[Fredda Weinberg]

39. All caps doesn't make the allegation any more credible

And if you can't offer a legal opinion to the contrary, or cite a statute that was broken, I'm afraid you've been fooled.

[seemslikeadream]

43. You didn't hear about the Black vets?

[Fredda Weinberg]

66. Yes, but that's a separate incident n/t

[seemslikeadream]

70. SO?

[Fredda Weinberg]

84. I'm sorry if the incidents are combined in your mind

But the documents I saw relating to the emails accidently sent to a political account referenced a list of recently registered voters, with no designation as to their race or ethnicity. If there's another, please show me or stop repeating the accusation that the GOP ignored a court order.

[seemslikeadream]

44. So what do ya think of RFK Jr. Fredda?

[Fredda Weinberg]

67. Never met him. Why? eom

[seemslikeadream]

68. No opinion on HIS reputation?

Greg Palast and RFK Jr. in NYC - May Day 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du9QWpCWbbY&eurl=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qs7td9WRYM&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B-ZdF_pfj4&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXsi76rBDNU&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b00zf8gfBGI&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CnV_Z3ATHo&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgW1bewMbxU&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcaLo-vjrvg&mode=related&search=

[Fredda Weinberg]

82. Good dinner conversation

But I'm busy these days.

As for caging ... don't hear RFK give it a peep. Do I have to listen to each one?

And I understand the argument ... there was an injunction granted in Ohio. If someone with standing takes the national party to state court, who knows? Maybe the Supremes can redeem themselves. But nationally, caging is still despicable - albeit legal.

Got a source where RFK repeats the fallacy? I can't find a reference.

[seemslikeadream]

113. If ya can'r be bothered to WATCH the videos

then you won't find a reference

[Fredda Weinberg]

122. The first one wasted my time

You think you get a second chance?

[seemslikeadream]

123. If you think listening to Kennedy is a waste of time

you're wasting my time

[Fredda Weinberg]

130. He ain't helping with NYPD. I have no time to listen to his causes

I met Palast's friends - and declined to party with them.

If you need to worship heros, be my guest ... but I had no illusions about Palast going into the project and none about RFK now.

You claimed a lawyer supported Palast's allegation and asserted evidence was in the linked videos. Since the first contained no such language, I assume you don't know what's on any of the clips. Don't be insulted; if there's anything that backs your argument, please, I'm not going anywhere.

[Jazzgirl]

63. Took you off of ignore to see if I could remember why

you were on my ignore list. Now I remember.....

[seemslikeadream]

159. Vote caging is an illegal trick to suppress minority voters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x285308

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

57. challenging based on race is illegal in my state - heres law

and if it isn't in all states, than that needs to be fixed.

Here is the law regarding voter challenges in North Carolina

The challenge process for election day is set out in GS 163-87, 163-88, and 163.88.1. A person who challenges a voter on election day must be a voter of the same precinct of the challenged voter (GS 163-87).

Challenges may not be made indiscriminately. GS 163-90.1 states:

§ 163­90.1. Burden of proof.

(a) Challenges shall not be made indiscriminately and may only be made if the challenger knows, suspects or reasonably believes such a person not to be qualified and entitled to vote.

(b) No challenge shall be sustained unless the challenge is substantiated by affirmative proof. In the absence of such proof, the presumption shall be that the voter is properly registered or affiliated. (1979, c. 357, s. 4.)

If a voter is challenging persons solely based upon their racial features or their ethical name without knowing the personal background/facts on the person's residence or citizenship, that would be indiscriminate and not allowed. It would be the call of precinct judges as to whether the challenges are indiscriminate. Concerned citizens should first share their concern with the precinct judges. The precinct judges would call the county board. It would be the decision of the county board to bring this agency in. It would be the decision of this agency to then decide how to respond including the option of contacting the USDOJ to bring federal enforcement in.

There are also possible Federal violations as well. 42 USC 1971(b) states:

(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

42 USC 1973i also states:

. (b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 1973a(a), 1973d, 1973f, 1973g, 1973h, or 1973j(e) of this title.

The penalty of the violation of the above, both as to the actual action and conspiracy, is found in 42 USC 1973j.

(a) Depriving or attempting to deprive persons of secured rights Whoever shall deprive or attempt to deprive any person of any right secured by section 1973, 1973a, 1973b, 1973c, 1973e, or 1973h of this title or shall violate section 1973i(a) of this title, shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

. (c) Conspiring to violate or interfere with secured rights Whoever conspires to violate the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this section, or interferes with any right secured by section 1973, 1973a, 1973b, 1973c, 1973e, 1973h, or 1973i(a) of this title shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

A citizen who has a good-faith basis to challenge a voter in his precinct has a right to do so. But for example, a voter who decides to challenge all voter that appears to be Hispanic, speak with a Hispanic accent, or have a Hispanic name may be in violation of both State and Federal law. This could be a serious matter (a federal felony). If this person desires to challenge voters indiscriminately, he does so at his own peril.

[Fredda Weinberg]

65. Read the law again. Sorry, but you prove my point

By checking whether the mail was returned, the cagers complied with the letter of the law, as in

f a voter is challenging persons solely based upon their racial features or their ethical name without knowing the personal background/facts on the person's residence or citizenship, that would be indiscriminate and not allowed

The GOP had facts on the person's residence - the mail was returned undeliverable.

Look, it was despicable to target new registrants, but caging is not challenging voters on election day - as one Supreme Court Chief Justice is known to have done. Even then, what Renquist did was legal.

[blogslut]

77. Ah, but remember

This wasn't just about challengng people at the polls. Ths was about keepng them off the voter rolls by that little certified letter scam they used with the (mostly black) soldiers, serving in Iraq. IIRC those solders were on those caging lists.

The point being, a majority of those in the cage were both black and registered as Democrats. I think it merits investigation into why people fitting this particular profile were on that list.

[Fredda Weinberg]

78. Once again, you prove my point

I assume you're quoting Palast. So he thinks the fact that mostly black soldiers was impacted merits investigation? I wouldn't call it abuse of process, but notice, there's no accusation of illegal acts.

Seriously, Congress can call attention to shameful, despicable acts at political whim - but I am responding to a specific charge that an illegal act had occurred.

[blogslut]

81. And how do we arrive at charges?

By investgation.

Don't take Palast's word. Take Robert Kennedy's word. These people were singled out and deliberately denied the right to vote, based on shady, concerted efforts. People that just happened to be black and Democrat. I think it deserves investigation, especially when the RNC/WH have just recently claimed that that caging list was a donor list.

[Fredda Weinberg]

87. Charges can be brought by federal officials

Which I'm afraid will have to wait the next election.

But please read your own post: if the list was of donors, do you think it was race coded?

Such lists can be purchased from unscrupulous sources -- shame 'em in a public hearing. Hurrah!

But don't make unsubstantiated claims or you'll never get a room.

Good night and good luck to us all.

[Usrename]

112. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

I'm no lawyer, but I though everybody knew this. Since FL (where I grew up) is a targeted voter rights state, I guess I had more exposure to the rules of the act back in the day.

Perhaps a real lawyer could weigh in on whether or not criminal sanctions apply. I have no reason not to believe RFKjr (a real lawyer) when he says that this new US attorney in AK belongs behind bars.



From wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

Section 2

Section 2 contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. The 1982 amendment provided that proof of intentional discrimination is not required. The provision focused instead on whether the electoral processes is equally accessible to minority voters.<5> This section is permanent and does not require renewal.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

93. You have to be member of the precinct of voter you challenge in NC

The kind of shennanigans that went on in Florida are astonishing and blatent, and only could occur with the enabling or encouragement of a corrupt political machine.

In NC, you have to be a member of the same precinct as the voter who you are challenging:

The challenge process for election day is set out in GS 163-87, 163-88, and 163.88.1. A person who challenges a voter on election day must be a voter of the same precinct of the challenged voter (GS 163-87).

Challenges may not be made indiscriminately, precinct judges or bi partisan BOE members would have to decide:

...It would be the call of precinct judges as to whether the challenges are indiscriminate. Concerned citizens should first share their concern with the precinct judges. The precinct judges would call the county board. It would be the decision of the county board to bring this agency in. It would be the decision of this agency to then decide how to respond including the option of contacting the USDOJ to bring federal enforcement in.

[Fredda Weinberg]

94. "keep a steady eye on each other"

I like that. But I lived in Florida and could tell you horror stories ... so the process has to protect us from our indifference.

Rove is being called on the carpet; if you're not paying attention, the legal machinery has beginning its slow and inevitable grind. My brother, who *is* the judge in the family, always counsels patience when relying on judicial remedies.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

98. our bi partisan BOEs screen these challenges before it goes further

It doesn't go to a judge first here in NC.

It has to get by a bi-partisan county boe.

If somehow the democrats and republicans decide to collaborate in disenfranchising voters,
then still this anomalie would be detected by our public, as well as our SBOE.

Our SBOE doesn't take kindly to voter disenfranchisement, and the courts tend to be on
the side of our SBOE.

[Fredda Weinberg]

125. The hardest part for me in Florida was seeing collusion

I wish we could depend on informed, involved citizenry. Maybe it's education, population density or sheer luck ... thank you for your participation.

[merh]

106. See my post 103

n/t

[mod mom]

166. SLATE: Vote caging is an illegal trick to suppress minority voters

What would suggest that vote caging is a big deal. Is it?

Vote caging is an illegal trick to suppress minority voters (who tend to vote Democrat) by getting them knocked off the voter rolls if they fail to answer registered mail sent to homes they aren't living at (because they are, say, at college or at war). The Republican National Committee reportedly stopped the practice following a consent decree in a 1986 case. Google the term and you'll quickly arrive at the Wizard of Oz of caging, Greg Palast, investigative reporter and author of the wickedly funny Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans—Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild. Palast started reporting allegations of Republican vote caging for the BBC's Newsnight in 2004. He's been almost alone on the story since then. Palast contends, both in Armed Madhouse and widely through the liberal blogosphere, that vote caging, an illegal voter-suppression scheme, happened in Florida in 2004 this way:

The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and—you got to love this—American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.
Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation—and the soldiers were overseas.

Palast supplies evidence linking Tim Griffin, then-research director for the RNC, to this caging plot; specifically, a series of confidential e-mails to Republican Party muckety-mucks with the suggestive heading "RE: caging." The e-mails were accidentally sent to a George Bush parody site. They also contained suggestively named spreadsheets, headed "caging" as well. The names on the lists are what Palast's researchers deemed to be homeless men and soldiers deployed in Iraq. Here are the e-mails.

-snip
http://www.slate.com/id/2167284

[Proud2BAmurkin]

80. Who cares if it's legal it's scandalous enough to do real damage to Repukes

if there's evidence of Palast claims which if there was every major paper would be interested and they're not.

[Fredda Weinberg]

91. So let's hold a hearing ... I'm enjoying the shows

It's entertaining to show the experience with DUers ... Monica Goodling was a hoot!

Who cares if the Dems gave her immunity - as you note.

[Nunyabiz]

116. Caging is election fraud which is a Felony n/t

[Fredda Weinberg]

129. Who found the practice to be fraudulent?

To the contrary, every ruling has language to the contrary. The only legal question that was decided is whether the results of the mailings can used as evidence to disqualify a registered voter.

[Nunyabiz]

147. LOL

Of course every ruling would do that because those making the damn ruling are the GUILTY PARTY...DOH!
It is a federal crime and those charged with prosecuting this crime are the ones that COMMITTED it.

You must be a shill of some sort or just plain ignorant if you honestly believe that Caging is legal.

The only honest legal question is why such an obvious violation of the "Voting Rights Act" is not being prosecuted.

[Fredda Weinberg]

153. 134 posts? Welcome to DU

You don't know what I must be because you obviously don't know me or the law. I'm old enough to remember when the Act was passed and why. I lived through riots after MLK was assassinated and don't want to see 'em again.

So, welcome to DU and if you listen you'll learn. Repeating dubious legal claims from single sources won't impress the congregation, even if you overuse capitalization.

[Nunyabiz]

155. what does 134 post have to do with anything?

I suppose you started out with 500+?
get a grip, you are wrong plain and simple.
Targeting a single group such as Democrats that are minorities or in the service and caging them is a felony, your denial of this fact is meaningless.

[Fredda Weinberg]

156. We welcome new members

So good to see your name and welcome to DU.

But in the reports I read and the spreadsheet I saw, newly registered voters were targeted. I'm not sure if it's illegal to limit the list to the opposition party ...

The shame is that boards of election went along with this charade - and scofflaws at the local level weren't driven out of office.

But hurling foundless accusations helps no one. I haven't seen evidence to support your claim, so please furnish as example.

[seemslikeadream]

160. DID YA SEE THIS FREDDA?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2866263

[Nunyabiz]

162. Thanks I was just about to post that also n/t

[Fredda Weinberg]

168. Yes, so what?

Responded elsewhere

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

41. Down to brass tacks here. So, Greg Palast and your mother's passing are linked?

:shrug:

I'm not trying to sound callous, but your post would have had much more traction in Palast's rather obscure days. This has the sound of a long time feud.

He has the email ammunition and knows exactly in which context to frame it.

I'm sure it's not as if you're trying to character assassinate him or anything. MKJ

edited grammer, Valgal sounding.

[Fredda Weinberg]

64. You bet they're linked. She believed in him

I haven't divulged anything that's not in the public record. Warning you of verifiable credibility issues is not character assassination - and if you can't tell the difference, then the opposition has won.

I've never feuded with Palast. I came to DU because it enforced community rules when Salon's TT refused, for commercial reasons, to ask their membership to behave. I shared what I learned with the congregation and am exceedingly proud of the impact we had.

I have asked anyone to support the claim, reproduced here, that caging is illegal. That's a legitimate question that goes to our credibility.

As for Palast's email list - I helped him build it. To prevent it from becoming a monster, I'm willing to publicly question unsupported accusations. If you find that uncomfortable, I suggest you stay out of politics.

I'm in it to promote social stability and advance education. I achieve results without promoting myself. Heck, you probably don't even know how I make an honest living.

Yeah, this has shades of the time I stood up to Bev Harris. But DUers know, or should know, how that dispute resolved.

On this somber memorial day, I bid you peace.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

69. So, Salon didn't heed your requests for their members' behavior and DU did?

Cool. MKJ

[Fredda Weinberg]

85. I'm still here, ain't I?

So I stayed away for almost three years after my mother passed on ... it was a painful time anyway. But I was positively gleeful to come back and catch up on Harris' comeuppance. I'm only human.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

117. Well, I doubt you'll care much for my behavior, nor will you be able to control it.

You may find things have changed in how much lockstep one can demand. MKJ

[Fredda Weinberg]

131. Lockstep? Harmonic motion is a dangerous force

but if you study the equations, the power is immense and can be directed to do useful work.

I demand nothing from DU. Whenever I have asked for courteous treatment, the moderators have responded. I make my annual donations. If anything's different this time, it's in the lower open hostility. Seriously, the points that had to be made were explained.

And why would I want to affect the behavior of someone who identifies him/herself as BleedingHeartPatriot?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

136. A most civil response. Thanks, and when I joined in 2004 I was all about the hyperbole.

I couldn't believe that brilliant screen name hadn't been snagged by someone else.

Living, learning, :toast: MKJ

[Pastiche423]

74. Don't you ever get tired

of coming here, only to bitch and whine about someone "stealing" your work?

[Fredda Weinberg]

88. Only? Where's your cave? oem

[Pastiche423]

92. Right here on DU

[Fredda Weinberg]

95. Then use your star and search for my posts

Only ... hah!

[Pastiche423]

97. Uh, no thanks

I prefer to have a pleasant evening.

[merh]

103. The tactics were legally challenged in the '80s

Your brother, the judge. should be aware of the challenges, and you should have found reference to them if you simply searched as I did.

~snip~

Courts in the past found that Republicans used tactics that were aimed at intimidating minority voters and suppressing their votes. The consent decrees in New Jersey stemmed from several incidents in the 1980s.

In 1981, the Republican National Committee sent letters to predominantly black neighborhoods in New Jersey, and when 45,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the committee compiled a challenge list to remove those voters from the rolls. The RNC sent off-duty law enforcement officials to the polls and hung posters in heavily black neighborhoods warning that violating election laws is a crime.

In 1986, the RNC tried to have 31,000 voters, most of them black, removed from the rolls in Louisiana when a party mailer was returned. The consent decrees that resulted prohibited the party from engaging in anti-fraud initiatives that target minorities or conduct mail campaigns to "compile voter challenge lists."

~snip~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7422-2004Oct28.html

You alleged to be informed yet you don't know about these challenges and consent judgments.

How very odd.

[Fredda Weinberg]

127. Dude, let me share what he explained to me

The relevant quote from the article is, "Challenge rules vary by state. In general, challengers must supply evidence that the voter may not be eligible. Grounds can include that a voter is not a U.S. citizen, is not a resident of the state or county where he or she is registered, or is younger than 18. The complaints are settled by election board members or precinct judges."

That is the national state of the law. In NJ or Ohio, the GOP faces sanctions if they violate an injunction or a ruling. But everywhere else, the acts are despicable and should be ended with public humiliation of the perpetrators.

Confusing legal culpability with unscrupulous behavior only leads to frustration; if you understand why the authorities allow the practice to continue, it's easier to respond intelligently and make a difference.

Can you imagine the patience it took to bring an obscure issue ... scrubbing voter lists ... to the sober attention of the mainstream media and prevent a repetition of legal political activities? Dirty tricks, indeed - and I never had to stretch the truth or personally attack an opponent.

If you have questions, ask. But please, if you've never pounded the table before a patient, wise magistrate - know that the law has depths you have not plumbed.

See you 'round DU.

[merh]

137. Dude, you are the one that said no legal opinion exists relative to the

use of mass mailings (caging lists) and disenfranchising voters. I simply provided you the references to the legal opinions you were not aware of as reflected in your post. There have been successful challenges of such activities (complete with legal opinions).

The federal government, the DOJ, and the federal courts get involved when the actions of the state political operatives violate federal voting rights laws. It has nothing to do with state law and would probably be something challenged if the DOJ were not hamstrung by the political appointees that control it.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merh]

144. LOL, touchy aren't you.

I merely provided you with the legal opinions you asked for. The only one that is in contempt or rather that is contemptible is you. Consent decrees are federal consent decrees and they were decided based on allegations that the federal voting rights laws were violated during the campaigns for federal elections. You really ought to try to be informed before you reprimand me. How dare you take offense to my posts and accuse me of not understanding when it is you that doesn't understand and hasn't bothered to investigate the proceedings I referenced. You are the one that lacks the understanding of legal matters.

Relative to Greg Palast, again we are talking about caging lists used to interfere with the voting rights of those voting in the federal election, thus the federal laws apply and the opinions provided to you would be the precedent that controls. Thus the opinions prove you were uninformed (some would say ignorant).

The shameful behavior that were the caging lists falls within the defrauding findings as rendered by the federal courts. You really ought to try to keep the jurisdiction of the issues in mind when talking about the legal matters.

:hi:

[Fredda Weinberg]

145. "Consent decrees are federal consent decrees"

I can't start laughing ... it's too late in the evening. Honestly, it's all I can do to stifle the guffaws.

Rather in contempt? Baby, tonight I enjoyed the company of our precinct's commanding officer, who absorbed the Florida file eagerly. Never mentioned you know who, or you know whatever ... we planned the future of police/public relations in my home town. Hold me however - I got the deed done righteously.

Let me explain the law briefly, cause you won't learn otherwise: until the Supremes have their say, the devils have their way. State court precedents percolate up the legal food chain until they are adopted as a national standard (and Congress could, if they would, speed up this issue if it was no longer a political cudgel) by the United States Supreme Court.

Along the way, there will be appellate victories: components of the federal legal system will recognize what states have done. Contradictions between or among the jurisdictions assure standing and increase chances of getting all important cert.

Now, let us stop throwing around terms like ignorance. Seriously, you're not worth the extra keystrokes, but maybe someone will be inspired to learn the weaponry of politics: the law. Or as I prefer it this evening ... da law!

[merh]

154. And you really are uninformed - why not try researching the matter.

The consent decrees were rendered by A FEDERAL JUDGE in cases filed in Federal Court (U.S.District Court) for activities of the RNC in a particular state relative to voter disenfranchisement and mailing lists.

For the love of god stop talking until you know what it is your are talking about.

And since the consent decrees were handed down by the federal courts on issues involving matters of federal import and the federal voting rights acts, the consent decrees are the law until they are overturned by an appellate court.

NATIONAL DESK
Times Select Content DEMOCRATS SUE REPUBLICANS ON PLAN TO CHALLENGE VOTERS
By E. J. DIONNE JR., SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES

The Democratic Party filed a $10 million lawsuit against the Republican National Committee today, charging that the Republicans' program to purge ineligible voters from the rolls was really an attempt to ''harass, intimidate and improperly challenge'' blacks. The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Newark and announced at a news conference here, charged that a Republican ''ballot integrity program'' was in violation of the Voting Rights Act because it was ''targeted overwhelmingly at bla...
October 8, 1986 U.S. News
MORE ON REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND: REGISTRATION OF VOTERS, BLACKS (IN US), SUITS AND LITIGATION, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, UNITED STAT

NATIONAL DESK
Times Select Content THE 1990 CAMPAIGN; Judge Assails G.O.P. Mailing in Carolina
By B. DRUMMOND AYRES JR., SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES

A Federal judge said today in New Jersey that mailings by North Carolina's Republican Party in the final days of the racially tinged Senate contest appeared to violate a court order he issued eight years ago prohibiting the Republican National Committee from improperly singling out and intimidating minority voters. But the judge, Dickenson Debevoise of the Federal District Court in Newark, told the complainants, the Democratic National Committee, that he could take no action because the apparent...
November 6, 1990 U.S. News
MORE ON REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND: BLACKS (IN US), MINORITIES (ETHNIC, RACIAL, RELIGIOUS), DEBEVOISE, DICKINSON R, HELMS, JESSE, DEMOCRATIC PARTY, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, REPUBLICAN PARTY, NORTH CAROLINA

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_national_committee/index.html?s=oldest&query=ELECTIONS&field=des&match=exact

[Fredda Weinberg]

157. Again, you're diluting the issue

Ya gotta love the law to accept this, "But the judge, Dickenson Debevoise of the Federal District Court in Newark, told the complainants, the Democratic National Committee, that he could take no action because the apparent violation did not fall within his jurisdiction."

Either stick to the facts in the current matter, which involves WH staff and can be scandalous, even if wholly legal - or let's follow the progress of the national issue that's making its way through the unappealing process.

[merh]

158. Go read my previous posts. I had already noted that the

politicizing of the DOJ was a hinderance. You aren't telling me anything new and it is you that is unaware of the facts and refuses to acknowledge them once they were provided to you. I merely responded to your posts and provided you with the legal opinions you said didn't exist:

So what if Rove was involved in the US attorney filings? Even caging, despicable as it was, isn't necessary illegal - and I've seen no legal opinion that says it was.

Challenging votes is not illegal. The method may be despicable
but I've seen nothing that violates any state or federal law of which I'm aware. Have you found a legal opinion to the contrary?

All caps doesn't make the allegation any more credible
And if you can't offer a legal opinion to the contrary, or cite a statute that was broken, I'm afraid you've been fooled.

I have asked anyone to support the claim, reproduced here, that caging is illegal. That's a legitimate question that goes to our credibility.

You even had the audacity to state that Rove's involvement in the DOJ firings was no big deal.

Where I come from, we call your posts replying to my posts as "crawfishin'".

:hi:

[Fredda Weinberg]

146. Even the Great Palast can not make the despicable illegal

Nope, I'm afraid the best legal mind couldn't bring Sangretti to justice: the bastard stole campaign stationary and sent out bogus press releases, inviting homeless people in the opponent's name and offering beer. You think Muskie had a chance?

The federal rulings, and there will a multitude, must wait until the cycle ends. When the effects of the corrupt election have a chance to work back toward equilibrium, meaningful arguments will be made and this loophole will close. Before that, cooler minds will prevail and local efforts will make future exercises meaningless.

But it happened because it could and realistically, the public has already given our side the power of podium to compel testimony (screw the legal niceties, this is for the history books), frame the mass media's debate and appeal directly to the party membership.

If we take this adverse event and use the power of it against those who committed the deed, if not a crime, then call this political judo.

[nashville_brook]

111. if you sincerely want to "warn people" of Palast's "credibility" issues, you'd do better to

make some friends first. you sound like someone with an ax to grind. actually, like someone with an ax ground down to a nub. it's difficult to take your "warnings" seriously given your tone.

[Fredda Weinberg]

128. Ah, your problem, my friend. I'm no Cassandra

You suffer my tone ... I am this way in real life. That's why Palast put up with me and he's still reaping my rewards.

If you have trouble with a specific issue, I'm listening. Else stand aside while we do what must be done.

[seemslikeadream]

17. YOU TOO Fredda READ THE DAMN POST

You certainly know what sarcasm is, don't you?

[merh]

104. See my post 103 to his post 64

He doesn't seem to be as informed as he claims.

:hi:

[blogslut]

24. I would like to know as well

n/t

[MADem]

10. Uh, he's not British. He interprets the American left to the British. NT

[seemslikeadream]

14. DID ANYONE NOTICE THE SARCASM SMILIE?

Of course I know he is not British

[MADem]

20. Well, the way your sentence read, one would think your sarcasm had to do with his

"leaving the Democratic Party."

But hey, whatever. No need to scream about it.

[Donnachaidh]

12. uhhh -- you need to do some homework

Palast isn't British. He works for a Brit newspaper.

[seemslikeadream]

15. READ THE DAMN POST

DO YOU KNOW WHAT SARCASM IS


Then maybe read this
USA Today Discovers Uncommonly Gifted New BRITISH Reporter


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x980664

[nealmhughes]

47. He lives in London and publishes there, but is American to the core.

Actually, he may live in NYC instead of London now, since most of his investigation takes him throughout the US. He reports for both the BBC and The Observor, which is the sister paper on Sunday of the Guardian.

He's the guy with the fedora and trench coat.

[seemslikeadream]

54. I know nealmhughes

I've been posting his stuff for over 3 years, I love Palast :hi:

I know everybody that publishes his stuff
















BradBlog



Harpers



Observer



BuzzFlash

[zulchzulu]

121. This shows how much you know about Palast...

He's only mentioned he's an American working for the BBC EVERYTIME he posts, writes or says something. Ferchrissakes, it's on his web site.

Nice try though...

:rofl:

[seemslikeadream]

124. zulchzulu do you know what sacrasm is?

or read any of these posts?

OR THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD

[zulchzulu]

141. I jumped the...

SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl:

[Skidmore]

7. I think you could probably look to the "Third Way" /DLC end

of the party for some of those contributions or we have had an infestation.

[tblue37]

119. self-delete

[blm]

132. Some have been blasting Robert Parry, too, and dared to say he was only trying

to sell books. Parry lost his job because he dared to uncover IranContra. Parry was BLACKBALLED for the most part and still is, yet some people here need to pretend that he is only interested in money, when he could have had all the money he wanted if he would have sold out to the corporatists - but, instead, he chose to stick with the TRUTH.

Long live our REAL investigative journalists.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

5. Well there seems to be an effort a foot other places

that has spilled over to here

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

23. After looking at the causes of this Palast thing...

And with the Cindy thing, I would say that a move is being made by someone(s) to nullify figures on the left, probably because the the rage that was engendered on the left by the events of last thursday.

I don't think that any of this is random.

[blm]

139. Exactly - Did you ever believe there would be a time when REAL reporters

and writers like Palast, Parry, Brinkley, Greider, and even RFK Jr. would be targets for trashing at DU?

[lildreamer316]

8. Speak of the devil .

See below.

[live love laugh]

16. I think. n/t

[Richard Steele]

72. You bet it is.

Some are subtle, others less so. But there
sure have been a lot of them dropping in
lately.

And it seems to be working for them.

[slank]

4. Comfortable lies or painful truth?

maybe when people have had time to grow comfortable with deceptions & lies the truth can be painful & even injurious.

Like once your body has grown around shrapnel, it is sometimes safer to leave it where it is than risk surgery to remove it.

But if you live in denial of the source of that same shrapnel without addressing it, like as not you will end up getting more injury & shrapnel from the same source.

[BlueIris]

11. "Like once your body has grown around shrapnel..."

You have given us an excellent metaphor and you may consider it, ahem, stolen. Thanks.

[zippy890]

oooh that sounds painful

here, have a corndog

to:post #4

[Jazzgirl]

62. Bye!

[madfloridian]

9. Because he speaks bluntly and passionately.

And that has not been acceptable for a long time.

[w4rma]

18. Palast exposed some bad things about Hillary, recently, so the Clintonites are after him.

Of course, the DLCers never much liked him anyway.

[Selatius]

26. You wouldn't happen to have links to that, would you?

[w4rma]

32. Yes, here is one.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/4/135221/0079

[seemslikeadream]

33. Funny that

KOS AGAIN!

[w4rma]

36. What did Kos do again? I don't understand what you are trying to say. (nt)

[seemslikeadream]

45. besides Clinton?

http://drational.dailykos.com/

[seemslikeadream]

27. Clintonites are after him.

:thumbsup:

But I think there's more to it that that

[EVDebs]

102. Palast tweaks the CIA's role in this...CIA/BCCI/Clinton $ links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=788757

"...according to Evil Money by Rachel Ehrenfeld page 180:

"The BCCI debacle made ts first intrusion into the US presidential race in 1992 and may be more damaging to the Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, governor of Arkansas, than his alleged extramarital affair. Clinton's fund-raiser and confidant, Jackson Stephens, a billionaire from Little Rock who owns the controlling interest of Worthen National Bank in Little Rock, was the person who introduced Bert Lance to Abedi. While Stephens might not have known back in 1977 that BCCI was a criminal bank, Bill Clinton had full knowledge of Stephen's involvement with BCCI when he accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Stephens family for his campaign. On the eve of the New Hampshire primary Robert Morganthau was looking into the BCCI/Stephens/Clinton link. In December 1991 The Wall Street Journal reported that Stephens and his bank invested in Harken Energy, a small Texas investment company of which George Bush, Jr, is a board member. The money Stephens invested came through the Swiss BCCI subsidiary."

--- But the CIA's contacts and these 'others' lead to a conflict of interests (agency vs. the nation)

"It's all part of a growing ongoing investigation into corruption in defense and intelligence contracts, which already has sent former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham to prison and, legal sources say, may threaten others in Congress and the CIA. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12634250/

This explains the close friendship of Bill and GHWB. Birds of a feather.

[blm]

133. Sh...mentioning BCCI is NOT allowed - in fact, Clinton doesn't mention it in his ENTIRE BOOK.

You think that would raise a few eyebrows, especially after Clintons were revealed BY RELIABLE DEM SOURCES to be working AGAINST Kerry in 2003-4.


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>>


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[creeksneakers2]

135. Palast looks like a fraud to me

The paragraph about the Clintons and Jackson Stephans and BCCI contains nothing more than guilt by association, and even at that the associations are incredibly weak, if not fraudulent.

The paragraph states that Stephans did not know BCCI was a crooked bank. If that's true then Stephans did nothing illegal with BCCI, so why would Clinton turn down a donation based on Stephans' association with BCCI?

The book, Fools For Scandal, by Gene Lyons, has some information on Clinton and Stephans and they weren't friends. Stephans, a Reagan Republican, came up on the short end of state actions while Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Stephans backed every opponent Bill Clinton had for his gubenatorial runs, except one who had cheated Stephans in a business deal. If Stephans gave Clinton any large sum of money when Clinton ran for president, which I doubt, what does that have to do with BCCI?

Another irrelevent sinister sounding claim thrown in was that Stephans invested in W's old company, Harken Energy. What does that prove? At one point, Harken energy was 42% bankrolled by billionaire George Soros. George Soros gave $15 million to MoveOn.org. Does that mean MoveOn.org is in on the Bush conspiracy? Are they hooked up with BCCI?

[blm]

140. heheh...and it's not like Clinton avoided BCCI's outstanding matters when he took office

right?

In fact, Clinton's book explains exactly how he chose to deal with all those outstanding matters left him in IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning, right creek? If people want satisfaction to those answers at the core of today's terrorism issues, all they need to do is read Clinton's book where he explains it in detail.


Right, creek?

[creeksneakers2]

142. Wrong

[blm]

149. Yeah - I noticed. Maybe you could help DUers and post the explanatory excerpts.

Great read that book. Great that is, If you LIKE mindless banter that avoids the most serious criminal acts ever committed by BushInc.

[karynnj]

148. Is there any real proof on the Clinton connection

This article says:
"On the eve of the New Hampshire primary Robert Morganthau was looking into the BCCI/Stephens/Clinton link. In December 1991 The Wall Street Journal reported that Stephens and his bank invested in Harken Energy, a small Texas investment company of which George Bush, Jr, is a board member. The money Stephens invested came through the Swiss BCCI subsidiary."

First, this explains why Stephens is being investigated, not how Clinton is connected. Even if he got campain contributions - this wouldn't prove he knew all os Stephens dealings.

Looking at Newsmeat, I do not see the Clinton contributions. His contributions are interesting - he is clearly now pretty RW - even contributing to Club for Growth. In the past, he contributed to Jimmy Carter as well as John Connally (R) for the 1980 election. For Senate, he backed Bumpers (D). In 1984, he contributed to John Glenn and gave a lot of money to conservative and Republican funds. For 1988, he contributed to Al Gore in the primaries and then to Dukakis in the General Election. He appears to have supported no one in 1992. In 1996, he contributed to Dole and Forbes. For the 2000, election he gave $1000 to McCain in the primary and $250 to W. In 2004, he gave to Bush.

There may have been some way other than straight forward personal contributions that Stephens contributed to Clinton - but it seems weird to me that he would not make any of the normal contributions that he made in every other election.

Clinton did pardon Marc Rich who was wanted for investigation on BCCI related commodities manipulations and did not take up other BCCI related issues that Senator Kerry listed as worth investigating when his committee ended.

[blm]

150. You mean Marc Rich was part of BCCI terrorist bank scandal and NOT just a tax evader

as we have all been told?

Wow. Imagine that.

[karynnj]

152. Edited version of post - to expand comments to overall topic of thread

(but I had too many interruptions, and the edit time passed)

This article says:
"On the eve of the New Hampshire primary Robert Morganthau was looking into the BCCI/Stephens/Clinton link. In December 1991 The Wall Street Journal reported that Stephens and his bank invested in Harken Energy, a small Texas investment company of which George Bush, Jr, is a board member. The money Stephens invested came through the Swiss BCCI subsidiary."

First, this explains why Stephens is being investigated, not how Clinton is connected. Even if he got campaign contributions - this wouldn't prove he knew all of Stephens dealings. Second, the source here is the Wall Street Journal speaking of a future investigation - did it actually happen and what did it find. My guess is that if we go to the WSJ as a source on Democrats, we will find all of them accused of awful things. I know they attacked Kerry for decades.

Looking at Newsmeat, I do not see the Clinton contributions. His contributions are interesting - he is clearly now pretty RW - even contributing to Club for Growth. In the past, he contributed to Jimmy Carter as well as John Connally (R) for the 1980 election. For Senate, he backed Bumpers (D). In 1984, he contributed to John Glenn and gave a lot of money to conservative and Republican funds. For 1988, he contributed to Al Gore in the primaries and then to Dukakis in the General Election. He appears to have supported no one in 1992. In 1996, he contributed to Dole and Forbes. For the 2000, election he gave $1000 to McCain in the primary and $250 to W. In 2004, he gave to Bush.

There may have been some way other than straight forward personal contributions that Stephens contributed to Clinton - but it seems weird to me that he would not make any of the normal contributions that he made in every other election and then go out of his way to contribute via other means. (Contributions in Governor races aren't included here.)

My concern with this type of story is that the backup is too weak to make a charge that is that damaging. If we accept things like this, are we better than the Republicans accepting the SBVT because they wanted it to be true that a Democrat was not a genuine war hero? It also brings careful real - but less flamboyant concerns into question.

Here, Clinton did pardon Marc Rich who was wanted for investigation on BCCI related commodities manipulations and did not take up other BCCI related issues that Senator Kerry listed as worth investigating when his committee ended. This likely means that he was willing to condone some level of corruption rather than radically clean up Washington - something he never set as his agenda and even his supporters would never claim. Senator Kerry genuinely stood alone in having the integrity and willingness to take the consequences in doing that. Clinton was not alone in pushing this under the rug. Proof that he ignored it, while not to his credit, does not make him complicit in the actual wrong doing.

Investigations like the Contra/drug investigation and the BCCI investigation dug up seedy actions of people in our government. They are very hard for people to believe or accept because they go against our concept of what type of country we are. Imagine the uproar had Kerry claimed (as is the truth) that his investigation stopped the Contra led drug running into the US under Reagan, who had just died and who the media nearly conferred sainthood on. Reporting on these edgy stories is tricky. On one hand, it might have been that without the initial AP story on Contra drug running, the veterans, who sought out Kerry, who was then a first term Senator, a former prosecutor and someone likely to find both the Contras and the drug running abhorrent, might not have been able to convince him to investigate.

On the other hand, Palast makes claims on this subject that go beyond what Kerry was able to prove. For those, he needs impeccable sources and needs to disclose any reason that makes them suspect. The problem with this type of journalism that attempts to extend lines beyond those where there is proof is that it allows the other side to discredit the proven pieces by proving minor errors in the pieces that took it too far.

[Fredda Weinberg]

29. Like his exposure of Mario Cuomo?

Don't say you haven't been warned - verify whatever Palast claims.

[w4rma]

34. Why should I care about Mario Cuomo? Cuomo isn't running for anything I can vote on. (nt)

[Fredda Weinberg]

40. You should care that Palast published allegations without evidence

And if you don't, that says something about you.

[seemslikeadream]

46. So how's that suit going Fredda?

[bobthedrummer]

48. Good question, as usual, slad.

:hi:

[seemslikeadream]

51. Hey btd

I need a drink of water :crazy:

[bobthedrummer]

52. Iced or uniced?

[seemslikeadream]

56. Iced with a touch of

[Fredda Weinberg]

61. I read that Palast settled with Cuomo

for an undisclosed amount

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

71. Well, there ya go, an undisputed statement of (I read) fact. .

MKJ

[Garbo 2004]

101. As reported by AP, the law suit was settled in May 2005. Link here:

http://news.ewoss.com/articles/D8A0JMHG2.aspx

And as noted here in a book/literature related blog http://www.mobylives.com/index5_13_05.html:

"Former New York governor Mario Cuomo has settled a $15 million libel suit he filed against Greg Palast and his publisher, Penguin Putnam imprint Plume, over statements Palast made in his book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. As an Associated Press wire story by Samuel Maull reports, Cuomo sued over Palast's charges in the book that Cuomo had used undue influence to get a racketeering charge thrown out against the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO). In court papers, Cuomo cited in particular a passage where Palast wrote, "I convinced the government to charge them (LILCO) with civil racketeering, and a jury said they should pay $4.8 billion. Then the governor of New York, a slick operator named Mario Cuomo, reached the chief federal judge in New York — and poof — the jury's verdict was thrown out." A statement from Plume pr head Brant Janeway said Palast, Plume, and Cumo had settled on "mutually satisfactory terms" after Palast wrote a letter to Cumor "clarifying his meaning with respect to the reference to the governor, and Gov. Cuomo will dismiss the litigation with prejudice." The amount of the settlement was not disclosed."

I found other links to the AP story but the story had been moved from the newspapers' site so it no longer was accessible. The passage over which Cuomo sued does not appear in my copy of Palast's book which was printed after the lawsuit was filed.

[pretzel4gore]

21. obviously there are 'agent mikes' here...

i assume that a free popular forum like DU would be infested with agents from the rnc, cia, kgb, mi5, fuw, rpg, kkk, oni, gop, nsa, puw and of course the bilderbergers....the problem is that, as undercover agents, they must deny their true status!
don't trust w/out independent source/confirmation; don't take candy from strangers (if you're lil kid) or buy rolex watches from homeless cranks (they probably stolen)
greg palast has been getting the gears for years, mike moore had his forum destroyed by freepers...if DU keeps going, then having every other poster a goddam boiler room techie is acceptable (as long as they make good contri's lol! :))

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

59. bookmarking.

prescience sucks.

Nice comment on the times. :toast: MKJ

[L. Coyote]

22. Short List

1.) Divining the Future. Says Dems already lost 2008.

2.) He is a self-admitted Dangerous Man. :rofl:

3.) He's British.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

35. I've been gone since Fri. PM, no access to a computer. I have never seen Palast trashed on DU.

Shit. I'm off to search.

Shit. MKJ

[seemslikeadream]

38. check GD Politics too

:hi:

[deminks]

49. I have noticed it too, seemslikeadream.

A couple of raw nerve endings floating around here. May be the same raw nerve ending for all I know.

I wonder if they are paid enough to do what they do here. The turnover I'll bet is rather high.

The truth is the only thing a liar is afraid of.

It is always fun to see what is jumped on here on DU. Lots of quick hits when I talk about oil price gouging, and now Palast. A true dem will discuss things with you, provide sources. The operatives will just dis you, try to make you feel uninformed, try to make you believe things only they know and never sourced. My ignore list is huge at the moment.

I knew you knew he wasn't British. :D

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

50. Welcome to DU, deminks!

:hi: MKJ

[seemslikeadream]

53. You're sweet deminks

Thanks for noticing and knowing :hug:

[blm]

151. The trashing of Palast, Parry, and even Brinkley has been going on for months.

.

[bamacrat]

55. I read his book Armed Madhouse, and it was great...

people will always find someone to hate when the news is slow.

[seemslikeadream]

58. This is Doug taking pictures of Black voters on election day - YEA IT'S ILLEGAL

The rest of the story
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=875069

[EFerrari]

60. Palast is a treasure. n/t

[annabanana]

73. This thread makes me itch

(lots of creepy crawlies)

[EFerrari]

75. Ewwwwwwwwew!

lol

:)

[Swamp Rat]

100. LOL!

:D

[blm]

134. heheh - yeah - let's not FORGET those who PROVED themselves to be untrustworthy

,

[BlackVelvet04]

76. Tell me about it......

my thread got slammed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x980566

[Proud2BAmurkin]

79. Palast voted for Nader. Not credible.

nt

[blogslut]

83. TTIHLIC

[BlackVelvet04]

86. He's not credible because he voted for Nader?

How do you figure that?

[zulchzulu]

89. I've come to the conclusion that those who trash Palast are simple twits I'd never talk to anyway

People who trash him have jack to prove he's wrong. And he has proof to prove he's correct.

[LeftCoast]

110. All he has to do is put up or shut up

Show us the emails. That's all it would take. Seems like it would be an easy choice for a 'journalist'.

:shrug:

[zulchzulu]

120. Actually I like how it plays more into making the Rove Camp paranoid

I would bet he has the emails...but I think it's great that people on the right want to see them...can you guess what they will do when they see them revealed?

Good for Greg... keep 'em scared.

[Octafish]

90. Didn't the Chimpministration recently launch an online initiative recently?

My guess is they started long, long ago.

[John Q. Citizen]

107. They did the same thing to Gary Webb, a long time ago....

[L. Coyote]

96. Because there is a hugely monstrous scandal in progress at the White House?

Focus, focus, focus! On connecting ALL the dots.

News is breaking on several fronts of this story.

EXIT RIGHT. Sara Taylor, WH political director, Rove Aide RESIGNS? "subpoenas for her testimony"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x990202

Oh, and it sells books too!

[Lord Helmet]

99. this love/hate thing at DU is just plain stupid

Is there a reason you can't be OK with people generally and still be OK with disagreeing with them once in a while?

That's how I feel mostly about everybody.

[John Q. Citizen]

108. Oh yeah, we love agent Mike. And by any other name, he's still just as sweet.

[Lord Helmet]

138. whatevah dude

I think you flatter yourself thinking the stuff discussed here at DU is of earthshattering significance.

[glitch]

163. You underestimate the amount of time and money they're willing to waste.

Cointelpro existed, was outlawed and was made legal again for a reason. Look into it, it is interesting.

They spy on Quakers, do you think we're dealing with the sharpest tacks on the board?

[LSK]

105. Because much of the USA/AG scandal has to do with voter fraud

[LeftCoast]

109. It could have something to do with him shilling a new book...

This is just some push-back from those of us who feel he's a hack. He tells a good story that liberals want to hear, but he never seems to provide the proof. It's all anecdotes and allegations.

Edited to add:

Oh, and I'm not a troll. I've been around here far longer than most of you making that sort of allegation. :P

[seemslikeadream]

114. The SHILLING is FREE too bad you didn't bother to read that

he put is book on line for FREE!!!!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=987957&mesg_id=987957

[midnight]

115. All I think about is ,thank God, there is someone as brilliant as

this man who has revealed what needs to be read, reported, and discussed.

[Azathoth]

118. Palast is 90% hype

He likes to portray himself as an uber Sy Hersh, dramatically alluding to all manner of nefarious government conspiracies and sordid political schemes that he alone has has uncovered through dogged investigative reporting and a carefully cultivated network of shadowy informants. Unfortunately, when he finally gets done with the theatrics and lays his cards on the table, his hand is usually underwhelming. The Iraq war was about oil? You don't say. Rove orchestrated the U.S. Attorney firings in order to install cronies in key law enforcement positions? Oh the humanity. The GOP uses 'caging' lists to identify potential vote challenges and suppress Democratic votes? Say it ain't so. They've been doing that since before I was born, and they'll be doing it long after I'm dead. Standardized educational testing sometimes reflects a cultural or racial bias? Well I never...

I give Palast credit for drawing attention to these issues, but it ain't exactly like he's uncovered the Da vinci Code.

[seemslikeadream]

126. You are WRONG

That's all there is to it

[EFerrari]

161. Well, I disagree. He broke the story that the WH knew

the levees were breeched and didn't warned NOLA for a whole day. And for his trouble he was arrested by Homeland Security. He's stayed with election fraud when few would touch it and he's countered the hit job on Hugo Chavez with actual fact.

[Beelzebud]

165. 95% of statistics are pulled out of people's assholes too.

[seemslikeadream]

167. and you are?

so credible? Who are you?

[Beelzebud]

164. Because he's bad for our 1 party system that pretends its a 2 party system.