Thom Hartmann: The President commits a felony, and no one notices

[freedomburns]

An interesting take on how the Republican spin-machine tries to control the content of what the media feeds us for breakfast, lunch and dinner.  What's on the menu tonight?  More coverage of some guy who did not commit a crime and was not charged in a ten-year old murder case.

fb

__________________________________________________________-

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0829-21.htm


Published on Monday, August 28, 2006 by CommonDreams.org 
JonBenét Died - And Bush Lied? 
by Thom Hartmann 
 
I was on the air doing my radio program two weeks ago when the story came down the wire that the killer of JonBenét Ramsey had been captured in Thailand just hours earlier. I opened the microphone and said words to the effect of, "Today there must be something really awful going down for the Republicans. Maybe Rove really will be indicted. Maybe Cheney. Maybe some terrible revelation about Bush. And if there isn't, today will be the day they'll toss out the unsavory stories - like gutting an environmental law or wiping out pension plans - that they don't want covered."

Apparently it was worse than I'd imagined.

That same morning - just hours after the JonBenét information hit the press and just after I got off the air - it was revealed that US District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor had ruled that George W. Bush and now-CIA Director Michael Hayden had committed multiple High Crimes, Misdemeanors, and felonies, both criminal and constitutional. If her ruling stands, Bush and Hayden could go to prison.

As Judge Taylor said in her "ACLU v. NSA" decision (available here): "In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] forbids."

When somebody acts "as FISA forbids," the law is pretty clear about the penalties. As you can read here, when somebody - anybody - breaks the FISA law, they are subject to "a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both."

Further, in the case of a president or NSA director, the law specifies that federal agents and courts have the authority to arrest and prosecute: "There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed."

Judge Taylor went on to point out that Bush had not only broken the law, but that he had also violated the Constitution - which many legal scholars would suggest is clearly an impeachable offense. In Judge Taylor's words:

"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments [the Bill of Rights], has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well."
But the media didn't notice. They were too busy with the story of the child-killer who had finally, after a decade, been found and captured. As the Think Progress blog noted:

Yesterday, a federal judge in Michigan issued “a sweeping rebuke of the once-secret domestic-surveillance effort the White House authorized following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.” The ruling was “a significant blow to Bush’s attempts to expand presidential powers,” but you wouldn’t know that by watching last evening’s network newscasts.
Think Progress went on to chronicle how much time the three big networks had devoted to the two stories that first night:

NBC - 7 minutes 39 seconds on the Ramsey story, only 27 seconds on the NSA
CBS - 3 minutes 23 seconds on the Ramsey story, only 25 seconds on the NSA

ABC - 4 minutes 3 seconds on the Ramsey story, only 2 minutes on the NSA

Within a few days, the story of the President being found guilty of both imprisonable felonies and impeachable violations of the Constitution had vanished from the mainstream media altogether.
 
<...>

[freedomburns]

Here's the thing.  People don't like it when Americans die.  JonBenet Ramsey dies, we pay attention.  People try to make it seem like the President is ruining our lives when he's actually preventing more American deaths, we don't pay attention.

Wow, that is an interesting interpretation.  How many mantal-gymnatstic loops did you have to go through to allow yourself to believe that that is the logical conclusion to draw from the above-mentioned facts?  I weep for your deductive reasoning skills.

My opinion is that the death of 2637 US servicemen recently, 61 of them this month, deserves more coverage by our national news services than does the arrest of an innocent suspect in single death that is ten years old.

But you seem to think that some deaths are more imporant than others.  The death of one pretty, rich, white gril in Colorado = 2637 deaths of poor, rural, mostly of color soldiers.  Ok...if you say so.  Americans care when Americans die.  Some Americans just matter more than others.  Ok! I understand now.  Thank you.

fb

[MODU]

Plus, this WAS all over the news, and it was noted numerous times that the Judge did not take into account recent precedents in her decision (even CNN noted that). 

The death of one pretty, rich, white gril in Colorado = 2637 deaths of poor, rural, mostly of color soldiers. 

You lost any ground for a debate on that one comment alone.  First of all, you don't know what the financial background of the men and women who died.  Secondly, they came from all across the US (including urban, suburban, and rural).  Lastly, they are quite ecclectic group of men and women of all racial backgrounds.  Why not spend some time looking at these men and women in the face and get to know their stories more:

"Faces of the Fallen"

[David S]

An interesting take on how the Republican spin-machine tries to control the content of what the media feeds us for breakfast, lunch and dinner.  What's on the menu tonight?  More coverage of some guy who did not commit a crime and was not charged in a ten-year old murder case.

fb

__________________________________________________________-

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0829-21.htm


Published on Monday, August 28, 2006 by CommonDreams.org 
JonBenét Died - And Bush Lied? 
by Thom Hartmann 
 
I was on the air doing my radio program two weeks ago when the story came down the wire that the killer of JonBenét Ramsey had been captured in Thailand just hours earlier. I opened the microphone and said words to the effect of, "Today there must be something really awful going down for the Republicans. Maybe Rove really will be indicted. Maybe Cheney. Maybe some terrible revelation about Bush. And if there isn't, today will be the day they'll toss out the unsavory stories - like gutting an environmental law or wiping out pension plans - that they don't want covered."

Apparently it was worse than I'd imagined.

That same morning - just hours after the JonBenét information hit the press and just after I got off the air - it was revealed that US District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor had ruled that George W. Bush and now-CIA Director Michael Hayden had committed multiple High Crimes, Misdemeanors, and felonies, both criminal and constitutional. If her ruling stands, Bush and Hayden could go to prison.

As Judge Taylor said in her "ACLU v. NSA" decision (available here): "In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] forbids."

When somebody acts "as FISA forbids," the law is pretty clear about the penalties. As you can read here, when somebody - anybody - breaks the FISA law, they are subject to "a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both."

Further, in the case of a president or NSA director, the law specifies that federal agents and courts have the authority to arrest and prosecute: "There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed."

Judge Taylor went on to point out that Bush had not only broken the law, but that he had also violated the Constitution - which many legal scholars would suggest is clearly an impeachable offense. In Judge Taylor's words:

"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments [the Bill of Rights], has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well."
But the media didn't notice. They were too busy with the story of the child-killer who had finally, after a decade, been found and captured. As the Think Progress blog noted:

Yesterday, a federal judge in Michigan issued “a sweeping rebuke of the once-secret domestic-surveillance effort the White House authorized following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.” The ruling was “a significant blow to Bush’s attempts to expand presidential powers,” but you wouldn’t know that by watching last evening’s network newscasts.
Think Progress went on to chronicle how much time the three big networks had devoted to the two stories that first night:

NBC - 7 minutes 39 seconds on the Ramsey story, only 27 seconds on the NSA
CBS - 3 minutes 23 seconds on the Ramsey story, only 25 seconds on the NSA

ABC - 4 minutes 3 seconds on the Ramsey story, only 2 minutes on the NSA

Within a few days, the story of the President being found guilty of both imprisonable felonies and impeachable violations of the Constitution had vanished from the mainstream media altogether.
 
<...>

No argument from me. The question is what to do about it. Democrats are no better and third party candidates can't get elected. So now what?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Here's the thing.  People don't like it when Americans die.  JonBenet Ramsey dies, we pay attention.  People try to make it seem like the President is ruining our lives when he's actually preventing more American deaths, we don't pay attention.

Wow, that is an interesting interpretation.  How many mantal-gymnatstic loops did you have to go through to allow yourself to believe that that is the logical conclusion to draw from the above-mentioned facts?  I weep for your deductive reasoning skills.

My opinion is that the death of 2637 US servicemen recently, 61 of them this month, deserves more coverage by our national news services than does the arrest of an innocent suspect in single death that is ten years old.

But you seem to think that some deaths are more imporant than others.  The death of one pretty, rich, white gril in Colorado = 2637 deaths of poor, rural, mostly of color soldiers.  Ok...if you say so.  Americans care when Americans die.  Some Americans just matter more than others.  Ok! I understand now.  Thank you.

fb

You have two statements, you make sense one doesn't:
Yes, the media should spend little time covering JonBenet and a lot on the Iraq war.

But one judge's decision that probably will be overturned should not be dwelled on.

[opebo]

First of all, you don't know what the financial background of the men and women who died. 

Oh please, MODU, who do you think enters the military, the rich?  One assumes you were pretending ignorance for the sake of your 'argument', but it comes off more as a joke.

[MODU]

First of all, you don't know what the financial background of the men and women who died. 

Oh please, MODU, who do you think enters the military, the rich?  One assumes you were pretending ignorance for the sake of your 'argument', but it comes off more as a joke.

Sorry Opie.  I didn't mean to tread into your personal space.  I know you're the true joke around here.  Forgive me. 

[freedomburns]

First of all, you don't know what the financial background of the men and women who died. 

Oh please, MODU, who do you think enters the military, the rich?  One assumes you were pretending ignorance for the sake of your 'argument', but it comes off more as a joke.

Sorry Opie.  I didn't mean to tread into your personal space.  I know you're the true joke around here.  Forgive me. 

You may think it's a joke that the poor are forced by their circumstances and illusory promises into believing that the military is their best option, but the men and women who wind up, um, dying because they wanted some help with college loans probably don't.

The statistical facts I cite are not subject to debate.  The majority of the servicemen and servicewomen fighting and dying for you and I come from low-income backgrounds.  They are disproportionately persons of color.  They disproportionately come from rural areas. 

I really am not surprised that you do not appear to know a lot regarding this subject.  The media doesn't give it any coverage, and Americans really don't seem to care much about the fallen soldiers...until it happens to them or their son.  If they did care (and they do) they would put a stop to the senseless killing of their sons and daughters in a failed war.

fb

[MODU]

I really am not surprised that you do not appear to know a lot regarding this subject.  The media doesn't give it any coverage, and Americans really don't seem to care much about the fallen soldiers...until it happens to them or their son.  If they did care (and they do) they would put a stop to the senseless killing of their sons and daughters in a failed war.

Yeah, you're right.  How dare a retired Navy guy who works in the defense industry directly with those who are actively serving know anything about the modern military or those overseas.  What was I ever thinking?   

[??????????]

Wow! The poor are the majority of the military!! This is a total shock to me! Most wars in the past have only been fought by the rich! [/sarcasm]

[David S]

I really am not surprised that you do not appear to know a lot regarding this subject.  The media doesn't give it any coverage, and Americans really don't seem to care much about the fallen soldiers...until it happens to them or their son.  If they did care (and they do) they would put a stop to the senseless killing of their sons and daughters in a failed war.

Yeah, you're right.  How dare a retired Navy guy who works in the defense industry directly with those who are actively serving know anything about the modern military or those overseas.  What was I ever thinking?   

Nice retort Modu.

BTW you should not worry about being viewed as a joke on this forum. You have no chance of winning that distinction away from Mr. O.