PDA

View Full Version : The Big Problem



Qtec
11-18-2011, 11:24 PM
link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/bluegal-aka-fran/hey-david-gregory-didnt-your-wife)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This post is written more in sorrow than in anger. <u>You would think The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell would be an oasis of transparency in a muddled and corrupted news media.</u>

Thursday night on Last Word, David Gregory was invited on to promote his web-only show "Pass with David Gregory." <span style='font-size: 14pt'>I guess the "pass" is, "I'll pass on mentioning, in all my Freddie / Fannie investigations, that <u>my wife, Beth Wilkinson,</u> was one of the four top executives in Fannie Mae who resigned as the federal government took it into receivership in 2008."</span>

I'm not accusing Beth Wilkinson of corruption or vice. She's clearly an accomplished attorney, and she joined Fannie as Dodd-Frank was being passed. I have no access to what she did or did not do as a Fannie Mae VP.

But then David Gregory comes on a television show and says (at the 2:22 mark)

The background's important: Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac are quasi-public/private agencies -- they survived, and they made a great deal of money, because they worked the Hill. But they went way beyond working the Hill -- they had the Hill by the throat. This is Republicans, this is Democrats, both sides of the aisle, made a lot of money through these companies! So, that's the backdrop...

Okay, David, but <span style='font-size: 14pt'>where in the "backdrop" is the fact that your wife was executive vice-president and general counsel of Fannie Mae when they stopped being "quasi-private" and got bailed out by the taxpayer? </span> </div></div>

Amazing!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> While presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich was forced to defend his lucrative former role with Freddie Mac this week, the mortgage giant and its larger cousin Fannie Mae had a roster of Washington heavyweights on their payroll for years, many of them Democrats.

Fannie and Freddie hired figures such as Tom Donilon, now President Barack Obama's national security adviser, and Rahm Emanuel, Obama's former White House chief of staff, as part of a campaign aimed at protecting government ties that allowed them to borrow money cheaply from financial markets.

"It was a mob-like operation," said a senior congressional official who over the years dealt with the political and lobbying operations at the firms, the two biggest sources of U.S. mortgage finance. "They had tentacles everywhere."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Gingrich was just one of a lengthy list of political power brokers with close ties to Congress and Republican and Democratic administrations hired by Fannie and Freddie as either board members, senior executives, lobbyists or consultants. </span></div></div>

The OWS protests are telling you that the system is corrupt. The media is corrupt.
For the last 10 years a propaganda war has been fought on the airwaves, and the dis-info gang are winning.

How bad has it gotten?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> For the second day in a row, Fox's "straight news" division has hyped the claim that U.S Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the case involving the constitutionality of a provision of the Affordable Care Act. Fox pointed to an email Kagan sent to then-Justice Department adviser Laurence Tribe on the day the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Care Act in which Kagan said, "I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing."

Legal ethicists have thrown cold water on the argument that Kagan needs to recuse herself over that email. <u>But Fox seems to have an argument that the legal ethicists haven't thought of:</u> Fox national correspondent Steve Centanni said <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Kagan's recusal may be required by "Article 28 of the Constitution." <span style="color: #990000">Fox's graphics department provided the relevant quote from the "U.S. Constitution, Article 28, Sec. 144"</span>:</span>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Three glaring problems with this argument: The Constitution has no Article 28, has no Section 144, and does not contain the language quoted.</span>

<span style="color: #990000">The Constitution actually contains seven articles, none of which have more than 10 sections. It also has 27 amendments, none of which contain anywhere near 144 sections.</span> </div></div>

..and if you read the comments,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They said a 2, 8, 1, 4 and 4. <u>The actual numbers are 2, 8, 4, 5 and 5. That's pretty good math for those guys.</u> Not good enough to win $1 at keno, but... </div></div>

Wel done Al (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/al-sharpton-slams-fox-citing-non-existent-p)

Q

LWW
11-19-2011, 06:14 AM
What was the quote?

Qtec
11-19-2011, 08:32 AM
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-an-20111116-kagan.jpg

link (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111160010?frontpage)

At the 1.22 mark.

Q

LWW
11-19-2011, 05:15 PM
I could do a Charlotte and say:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A mere slip, which happens to all in the media. </div></div>

but they blew it, obviously.

That being said ... it isn't what you have been spoon fed.

Someone in editing mistook USC for "US Constitution" instead of "US CODE" ... and US Code Title 28 reads:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">455. DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICE, JUDGE, OR MAGISTRATE JUDGE
How Current is This?
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or <span style='font-size: 14pt'>expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy</span> </div></div>
JUMPONG BUTTERBALLS ... Snoopy was punked again. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000455----000-.html)

Oh ... FWIW ... I knew the quote before I asked and knew that you had been played like Perlman plays a Strad. Again.

I wanted to see if you had the intellectual integrity to question the spoon.

You didn't. Again.

Soflasnapper
11-19-2011, 05:43 PM
I wanted to see if you had the intellectual integrity to question the spoon.

You didn't. Again.

Intellectual integrity?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Intellectual integrity??? </span>

Intellectual integrity would require one to admit that this law is not binding on the SCOTUS, or else obviously, Justice Thomas' wife's monied-position would REQUIRE as a matter of law that he recuse himself.

He SHOULD do that, as it would be consistent with the language and intent of this law, but he is not REQUIRED to do it, and probably will not by all indications. He would not have this option if this law were binding upon him or his fellow Justices of the SCOTUS.

LWW
11-20-2011, 03:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wanted to see if you had the intellectual integrity to question the spoon.

You didn't. Again.

Intellectual integrity?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Intellectual integrity??? </span>

Intellectual integrity would require one to admit that this law is not binding on the SCOTUS, or else obviously, Justice Thomas' wife's monied-position would REQUIRE as a matter of law that he recuse himself.

He SHOULD do that, as it would be consistent with the language and intent of this law, but he is not REQUIRED to do it, and probably will not by all indications. He would not have this option if this law were binding upon him or his fellow Justices of the SCOTUS. </div></div>

I agree that both should recuse themselves on this case.

I also find your claim that the law doesn't/shouldn't apply to high ranking inner party m,embers to be quite revealing.

Qtec
11-21-2011, 12:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wanted to see if you had the intellectual integrity to question the spoon.

You didn't. Again. </div></div>

Try and follow this dumba$$.

Fox national correspondent Steve Centanni said Kagan's recusal may be required <u>under the Constitution</u>.
Before he had even finished the sentence, Fox threw up this.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-an-20111116-kagan.jpg

eg they must have know beforehand what he was going to say.

It was no mistake.

Q