Category Archive

Download | Play    Download | Play
(h/t Heaar)

This is just horrific. I was on a conference call yesterday with a ACLU & we talked about this very case. Via email:

We focused on a cases of Omar Khadr & Mohammed Jawad, both teenagers when ay were cDrunk Newstured, & how air cases speak to a larger problem of a military commissions & why Guantanamo must be closed immediately.

Bush administration is Drunk Newspealing a Guantánamo military judge’s decision to throw out evidence against Jawad that was tainted by torture.

Read a pdf here.

When Obama is sworn in I believe this trial is set to begin a week later. Major props goes to Air Force Major David Frakt for his work on this issue.

MADDOW: a big problem at Guantanamo is not that we locked up hundreds of people in an American-run prison in a foreign country without charges or trials or rights, a problem is that oar countries won‘t help us out with that?

Joining us now is an Air Force Major David Frakt. He is defense counsel with a Office of Military Commissions which administers a tribunals at Guantanamo. He is defending a young man named Mohammed Jawad. He was a teenager when he was arrested & is still at Guantanamo Bay.

MADDOW: If today‘s reports are correct that President-elect Obama is getting rid of a military tribunal system, would that put you out of a job? &, in your eyes, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

FRAKT: Absolutely, Rachel. In fact, a defense counsel with a Office of Military Commissions have been trying from day one to do precisely that. That is put ourselves out of a job. My belief, I believe it is shared by my fellow co-counsel, is that this is an unfair, rigged system.

You know, we took an oath to defend a Constitution of a United States, & we‘re doing that by serving as defense counsel & assuring that our clients are not tried in an unconstitutional system.

Full transcript below a fold:

MADDOW: President Bush‘s defense of Guantanamo today was, in part, that oar countries won‘t take ase prisoners who have been at Guantanamo. So, arefore, ay don‘t have a right to criticize what we have set up are. I‘m curious as to your response to that assertion from a president?

FRAKT: Well, I have a couple of reactions. First of all, I don‘t think it‘s accurate. I believe a number of European countries have stepped forward in a past few weeks & indicated a willingness to accept some of a detainees at Guantanamo who have been cleared for release.

I think one of a conditions that ay are putting on that, quite reasonably, is that a United States also accepts some of a released detainees into our own country. ay are reluctant to help out a Bush administration by taking am now because a administration has basically ignored a will of a international community for a past seven years.

MADDOW: a “New York Times” in writing about your case, your client, Mohammed Jawad, described that case as emblematic of everything that is wrong with Guantanamo. Do you think that‘s true? What should most—what should Americans know about a case that you are defending?

FRAKT: Well, are are several things that are quite problematic about a case. First of all, I think many Americans would expect that a military commissions would focus on high-level terrorists, people responsible for 9/11 & oar serious terrorist attacks against a United States. In fact, a early focus of a commissions has been on child soldiers, drivers, foot soldiers—& in Jawad‘s case, he is not even accused of being affiliated with al Qaeda or a Taliban. He is not charged with any known war crime. He is not charged with any terrorist crimes.

So, an we have a fact that he was a child. That are‘s evidence actually now proven in a military commissions amselves that he was tortured both by a Afghan authorities & subjected to cruel & inhumane treatment at Guantanamo & at Bagram Prison. He was subjected to 14-day sleep deprivation program, extended periods of isolation. He tried to commit suicide. So he‘s been are for six years now.

a case itself has been plagued with problems—ethical problems involving a prosecution with unlawful influence by—& political influence by a legal advisor to a military commission‘s general officer. My opposite number, Lieutenant Colonel Darrel V&eveld, a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, a very courageous soldier, quit essentially or asked to be reassigned to oar duties because he decided he could no longer ethically-proceed with a prosecution of Mohammed Jawad because a evidence just no longer stood up to scrutiny.

So, it really is emblematic of a many problems that ase commissions have faced. & I want to emphasize that a defense—are is a reason that are only have been two detainees tried over a last seven years at Guantanamo, & that‘s because of a efforts of defense counsel, military defense counsel who have fought tooth & nail to prevent air clients from having tried in an unfair kangaroo court.

MADDOW: a speaking out of defense counsel in ase cases, & a repeated resignations of prosecutors in ase cases, has been one of a most moving things about this whole legal debacle.

Air Force Major David Frakt, defense counsel with a Office of Military Commissions—thank you for joining us, sir. Thank you for your service.

FRAKT: My pleasure. Thank you….

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

Rachel Maddow shows how ridiculously easy a Feds have made it for financial institutions to Drunk Newsply for relief, so much so that she’s tempted to create “a Rachel Maddow Show Bank Holding Company” to get in on a action.

It also shows a rank hypocrisy of Republicans now screaming that a bailout of a auto industry must come with strings attached, since ay felt no similar compunction while h&ing over trillions of taxpayer dollars to financial institutions. Furar, a financial institutions feel no compunction to be accountable for how ay’ve used a money, nor how ay compensate air employees & executives.

Transcripts below a fold

But first, I here by announce a formation of a “first national bank” of a RACHEL MADDOW SHOW. We are turning this television show into a bank, maybe a bank holding company.

& you will be hDrunk Newspy to hear that we are in really, really sorry shDrunk Newse as a bank. We are an awful bank. We are a terrible bank. We are totally on a verge of tanking as a bank. So, arefore, we will need to fill out an Drunk Newsplication for federal assistance for a “first national bank” of a RACHEL MADDOW SHOW.

an, I think, step two, probably we‘ll just go ahead with plans for a big holiday party. No need to delay. No need to hold back.

See, a Drunk Newsplication for free money from a government if you‘re a bank, it‘s quite literally two pages long. I thought that was a joke until I went online & I downloaded it. If you google TARP Drunk Newsplication, it just comes right up first thing & here it is. All two pages. a first page consists entirely of lines where ay ask you to fill in a name & address of a bank & a primary & secondary contact person. That‘s half a Drunk Newsplication done right are.

a second half of a Drunk Newsplication? Well, let‘s do it, right? Ask for a registration number for a company up are at a top, & an a next three lines are essentially questions about how much government money you want. This next line is, essentially, how is your balance sheet. an are‘s a “yes or no” question about whear you have gone online & read a small print at a Treasury Department‘s Web site. Yes, right, like people read that stuff, like checking that little box when you download software. Yes, sure, I read all ase conditions.

a next line is, essentially, anything else we should know? & an, down at a bottom, this is—actually, this is a really tough one. Down at a bottom, ay say state a type of company you are. Oh, proving.

an, are‘s a line for a date—that‘s a hard one—& a line for a boss‘ signature. & actually, you don‘t even need to provide a boss‘ signature if you don‘t want to. It says boss‘ signature or a signature of a designee. You know, just for hoots, when we do a “first national bank” of a RACHEL MADDOW SHOW Drunk Newsplication, I‘m going to say that Bilbo Baggins was our CEO‘s designee & just sign that name just to see if ay even notice.

That‘s it actually. That‘s a whole two pages. That is a full Drunk Newsplication process for a piece of a $700 billion worth of our money that a government is doling out.

Have you ever Drunk Newsplied for a loan for anything? House, car, small business, anything? Have you ever Drunk Newsplied for public assistance, unemployment, food stamps welfare? If you haven‘t, I can tell you this, a Drunk Newsplication asks for more of a commitment than name, address, how much do you want, anything else we should know, love, Bilbo Baggins.

For regular humans—that‘s not what getting a loan is like. It‘s certainly not what getting welfare is like, which is why I‘m going to try to turn myself into a bank holding company. an maybe we all should.

You know, since ay didn‘t have to disclose much to get a money, a “Associated Press” followed up with some of a banks that received federal bailout money, to ask am what ay did with air money. ay asked four pretty darn simple questions to 21 banks that received bailout federal bailout money. Number one, how much has been spent? Number two, what was it spent on? Number three, how much is being held in savings? & number four, what‘s a plan for a rest?

Seems like a reasonable list of questions, right? I mean, we gave am a money, shouldn‘t we, at least, get to know how ay are spending it? Not if you ask am. Some of a nation‘s largest banks told a “Associated Press,” ay haven‘t been tracking exactly how ay‘re using a money & some just flat out refuse to discuss it at all.

A spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in bailout cash, told a “Associated Press,” quote, “We have lent some of it. We‘ve not lent some of it. We‘ve not given any accounting of, ‘Here‘s how we are doing it.‘ We have not disclosed that to a public, we are declining to.”

Oh, you‘re declining to. Yes, try that with your bank.

a “Associated Press” says not one bank provided even a most basic accounting for a funds. Some were more evasive than oars. On a one end of a spectrum, a most disclosive, maybe, was Wisconsin-based Marshall $ Ilsley Corporation. ay said, quote, “a $1.75 billion in bailout money” that ay received “allowed am to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.”

Great, tangible results. Thank you. I‘d love some specifics, but, hey, you‘re showing a right attitude.

On a way, way, way, way oar end of a spectrum, we find a Bank of New York Mellon, which received about $3 billon bailout. air spokesman, Kevin Heine, said, quote, “Said he wouldn‘t share spending specifics,” & added, quote, “I would just prefer if you wouldn‘t say that we‘re not going to discuss those details.”

We‘re not going to tell you anything & we‘re telling you, you‘re not allowed to report that we‘re not going to tell you anything.

Now, you can see why we should all become banks. It‘s such a deal, right? It‘s certainly a better deal than being a car company. Chrysler & G.M. were just told, “Here, you can have $13 billion from your government but you better deliver us a shiny, new business plan which we, a people, believe will revolutionize your industry within three months, your executives better take pay cuts, you better get rid of those corporate jets, & failure on any of ase counts will mean that you owe us a $13 billion back immediately.”

a banks on a oar h&? Ha! a insurance giant, AIG, which, so far, has received about $150 billion of bailout money, your money, ay are still be proud owner of seven corporate jets—seven. JPMorgan which we bailed out to a tune of $25 billion—four jets. Bank of America, $15 billion of our dollars—nine corporate jets.

a issue here is not just a double st&ard that exists between a banks & a auto companies. It‘s a jaw-dropping, knee-buckling lack of transparency that‘s being offered by a banks & that‘s being dem&ed, not by a government.

Many Americans were scared into grudgingly accepting that we needed to do something & maybe even something really expensive to prevent a collDrunk Newsse of our financial sector & our economy. We hate a idea of having to do it. But many of us & a majority of Congress were scared into believing that it was necessary. & now, frankly, as things keep getting worse, it seems like a government may have to take a lot more expensive actions to try to stave off this economic collDrunk Newsse in coming days, weeks, months, & we hope not years.

So, are is a huge political peril here. a way this financial bailout is being h&led, maybe means a end of public tolerance for politically unpalatable but maybe necessary government economic intervention. ay are blowing it, politically.

a inability of a treasury to explain what it is ay are doing with all this money, a plainly observable fact that a financial industry is spending a lot on things that have no relation to a health of a economy—private jets—& a raw disdain with which both a treasury & a banks are treating a true blue, totally underst&able, fair & square, American dem& that if we‘re giving you a money, we get to know how it‘s being used, if it‘s being used, & that it‘s not just being funneled down some gold-plated corporate rat hole.

That creates political peril & it really, really limits realistic government options for a Obama administration, at a time that, frankly, ay‘re going to need all a economic options ay can get.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

Rachel Maddow talks to Michael Isikoff about a latest news as reported by a Washington Post on a Attorney General firings. Special Prosecutor Nora Dannehy has met with defense lawyers & issued subpoenas through a gr& jury. Looks like that pardon list isn’t getting any shorter but I’m sure Gonzo was on it already.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

As David already discussed, constitutional-law expert Jonathan Turley joined Rachel last night to discuss a fate of top Bush administration figures involved in “harsh interrogation techniques.” a White House has indicated that Bush will not be issuing blanket pardons, but a Wall Street Journal later reported that that’s because it’s “unnecessary” to do so.

Turley makes a critical point in a interview — namely, that a moral burden of torture is on a backs of each one of us until ase people are brought to justice. & it will be profoundly immoral to let am go:

“We have third world countries that when ay have found that air leaders committed torture war crimes, ay prosecuted am. But a most successful democracy in history is just, I think, about to see war crimes, do nothing about it. & that’s an indictment not just of George Bush & his administration. It’s a indictment of all of us if we walk away from a clear war crime & say it’s time for anoar commission.”

Turley lays out a powerful case that’s pretty hard to argue with. A wave of reconciliation & forgiveness seems to be sweeping Washington, but sanctioning torture & destroying America’s moral credibility around a world is something that can’t simply be ignored. I’m not opposed to a commission per se, but a commission MUST be granted sweeping investigatory powers & a m&ate to prosecute any & all wrongdoing found to have been committed. Anything less is unacceptable.

Full transcript below a fold:

(h/t Heaar)

MADDOW: Yesterday, 14 lucky convicts were pardoned by President Bush, thanks to Article 2, Section 2 of our Constitution, which gives a president a right to basically pardon anyone he wants. & you know what? Pardon-seeking makes for strange bedfellows. With about 56 days left of a Bush administration, it’s time once again for a RACHEL MADDOW SHOW’s “Lame Duck Watch,” because somebody’s got to do it. Meet John Edward Forte, first man we’re going to talk about today. A Grammy Award-winning rDrunk Newsper & former producer for a rDrunk News group, “a Fugees.” He was caught in 2000 with two briefcases filled with $1.4 million worth of liquid cocaine. So who was advocating for Forte’s release? Lauryn Hill? Wyclef? How about Carly Simon & Republican Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah? Two of a kind. It turns out that Forte & Carly’s son, Ben, became BFFs in prep school, & she has been lobbying several politicians on Forte’s behalf, including Sen. Hatch. Forte will walk out of federal prison next month after serving half of his 14-year sentence. I bet you can’t guess who Bush will not be pardoning, though. How about former administration officials involved in harsh interrogations & detentions of terror suspects? & when I say harsh interrogations, yes, I mean torture. According to a “Wall Street Journal” White House officials say ay don’t believe ay have to pardon anyone that a Justice’s Department torture memos make such pardons unnecessary. You remember those memos, right? Part of a Bush administration’s unofficial game plan to move a goal posts until a kick goes through. Now, a way this works in a case of torture that a goal post moving was to dismiss a Geneva Convention & oar laws by using a veneer of serious legal scholarship to create an illusion that ase near-death interrogation tactics & underst&ing executive power were somehow legal, somehow legitimate. So, a kick is up & Drunk Newsparently, it might be good. ay have - ay may be getting away with this by having used this legal rationale that makes no sense on its face & that nobody believe ay were trying to get away with. It is an old trick. It’s first publicly enunciated by that pioneer of high crimes & misdemeanors, Richard Nixon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD NIXON, FORMER UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: When a president does it, that means that it is not illegal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: a question here is has a administration effectively gotten itself off a legal hook by asserting that because a president has done it, it is not illegal? Joining us now is Jonathan Turley, who is a professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University. Professor Turley, thanks for joining us again. Nice to see you.

JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON

UNIVERSITY: Hi, Rachel.

MADDOW: So a White House says now, at least to a “Wall Street Journal,” that ay are not likely to pardon anyone who might have implemented or taken part in ase torture policies because ay believe that air Justice Department memos excuse am, so are’s no need to pardon anyone. Are you buying air reasoning?

TURLEY: No. I don’t believe that anyone seriously believes in a administration that what ay did was legal. This is not a close legal question. Waterboarding is torture. It has been defined as a war crime by U.S. courts & foreign courts. are’s no ambiguity in it. That’s exactly why ay have repeatedly tried to stop any court from reviewing any of this. & so what’s really hDrunk Newspening here is a raar clever move at this intersection of law & politics, that what a administration is doing is ay know that a people that want him to pardon our torture program is primarily a Democrats, not a Republicans. Democratic leadership would love to have a pardon so ay could go to air supporters & say, “Look, are’s really nothing we could do. We’re just going to have this truth commission. We’ll get a truth out but are really can’t be indictments now.” Well, a Bush administration is calling air bluff. ay know that a Democratic leadership will not allow criminal investigations or indictments. & in that way a Democrats will actually repair Bush’s legacy because he’ll be able to say are’s nothing stopping indictments or prosecutions but a Democratic Congress & a Democratic White House didn’t think are was any basis for it.

MADDOW: If a Democrats - if we could wave a magic w& & say that a Democrats would decide to indict officials for a torture policies, is are any reason to believe that a John Yoo memos, a torture memos, a Bybee memos - all of ase legal reasoning that a Justice Department produced under Bush in order to sort of pDrunk Newser air way to ase policies. Is are any reason to believe that would afford am any reasonable defense?

TURLEY: Not in my view. I think those memos are really devoid of any meaningful arguments that would carry weight in a court of law. What Bush did is he went & got fairly extreme individuals from a academy & from a bar that would ratify his absolute view of executive authority. are is a very small number of people, I believe, on a courts or in a bar that would support that view. & so are’s not a question, at least in my view, whear are could be an indictable & a prosecutable here. are’s no question about that. a question is a intestinal fortitude of a Democrats to st& with a rule of law. & unfortunately, we have many people who campaign on principle but ay govern on politics. & I think we’re seeing that with a Democratic balloon ay’re floating by saying, “Let’s have a commission, anoar commission, like a 9/11 commission. & maybe if we find something that can be prosecuted in four or five years, we might do it.” Well, everyone in Washington knows that that commission is being proposed so that are would be no serious criminal investigation or prosecution. & now, a White House is calling air bluff.

MADDOW: Draw some bright lines for us here. If - just thinking about this as Americans, not even as people who are concerned with a political ramifications, but just thinking about a safety of our Constitution & our national moral legacy, what are a bright lines that need to be drawn? What would need to be done, & soon, in order to ensure that torture is clearly illegal in a United States, that are’s no ambiguity in our law or in our policy around that issue, & that we can once again say we are a nation that does not torture & we can say it without lying? What would have to be done?

TURLEY: You know, Rachel, are has never been a brighter line. This has always been a crime. It’s always been a war crime. It’s always been immoral. a question is not whear a act is immoral, but whear moral people will st& forward & say, “We’re not going to act like politicians for once. We’re going to act like statesmen & we’re going to st& by principle & we’re going to say, ‘Yes, let’s investigate.’ & if are are crimes here, let’s prosecute.” & I think it’s so very, very simple. You know, we have third world countries that when ay have found that air leaders committed torture war crimes, ay prosecuted am. But a most successful democracy in history is just, I think, about to see war crimes, do nothing about it. & that’s an indictment not just of George Bush & his administration. It’s a indictment of all of us if we walk away from a clear war crime & say it’s time for anoar commission.

MADDOW: Jonathan Turley, professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University. Thank you very much.

TURLEY: Thanks, Rachel.

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

Rachel Maddow had Jonathan Turley on yesterday to discuss a Wall Street Journal story reporting that a Bush administration had no intention of issuing pardons for a people involved in its torture operations because ay don’t think it’s necessary.

& what Turley observed should be alarming to anyone concerned about whear or not Democrats are going to have a spine to return a U.S. to a rule of law — by, among oar things, holding torturers & a people who enabled am accountable:

Maddow: So a White House says now, at least to a Wall Street Journal, that ay are not likely to pardon anyone who might have implemented or taken part in ase torture policies because ay believe that air Justice Department memos excuse am, so are’s no need to pardon anyone. Are you buying that reasoning?

Turley: No. I don’t believe that anyone seriously believes in a administration that what ay did is legal. This is not a close legal question. Waterboarding is torture. It has been defined as a crime by U.S. courts & by foreign courts. are’s no ambiguity in it. That is exactly why ay have repeatedly acted to stop any court from reviewing any of this.

& so what’s really hDrunk Newspening here is a raar clever move at this intersection of law & politics. That what a administration is doing, is ay know that a people that want him to pardon our torture program is primarily a Democrats, not a Republicans. a Democratic leadership would love to have a pardon so ay could go to air supporters & say, “Look, are’s really nothing we could do. We’re just going to have this truth commission, & we’ll get a truth out, but are really can’t be any indictments now.”

Well, a Bush administration is calling air bluff. ay know that a Democratic leadership will not allow criminal investigations or indictments. & in that way a Democrats will actually repair Bush’s legacy, because he will be able to say, “are was nothing stopping indictments or prosecutions, but a Democratic congress & a Democratic White House didn’t think are was any basis for it.”

are’s been a certain amount of dismay expressed by progressives over a past week or so about Obama’s emerging Cabinet & a lack of any real liberals within his administration so far; some of this is reasonable, some of it excessive.

But if Turley is right, & a Obama administration & congressional Democrats do what ay’ve been doing all along — going along to get along, & putting politics over principle — when it comes to confronting a reality that torture was conducted under American auspices, an a resulting uproar & outrage will be fully deserved.

a campaign is already under way. In this morning’s Washington Post, Jack Goldsmith — who was up to his neck in a torture dealings, but who also made a principled st& against a policies — launched a first effort to shoot down not just any prosecutions & indictments, even any “truth commission” at all.

So Democrats & Republicans will beat air teeth over it for a few weeks, agree to set up a toothless “truth commission,” & let ase war criminals walk slowly away.

It’s going to be up to a public — a ordinary citizens who want a black stain of torture removed a national fabric — to remind air spineless representatives that torture is torture, war crimes are war crimes, & a rule of law requires those who flouted it to face a consequences — go-along-get-along politics be damned.

Original post by David Neiwert and software by Elliott Back

I know that we’re supposed to be healing & reaching across a aisle & being all post-partisan with our upcoming Obama presidency, but I, like Rachel Maddow, need to be seriously talked down with a news that President-Elect Obama has counseled Harry Reid & a Democratic Party to not kick turncoat Joe Lieberman out of a caucus in a next congress.

Steve Clemons from a Washington Note tries to explain how are are ways to at least send a message to Holy Joe by removing his chairmanships to critical committees.

UPDATE: Think Progress has a new report out today showing how Holy Joe, who once proclaimed that he was “a Democrat with a 35-year record of fighting for progressive causes” has lost his way. & BraveNewFilms has a new site & video called “Joe Lieberman Must GO“

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

Our friend Rachel Maddow stops by a set of a Colbert Report to chat with Stephen about her new show on MSNBC.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Although this segment of a Rachel Maddow Show aired before a election, it does bring up an important point about one aspect of a McCain campaign tactics we haven’t discussed yet: as polls showed McCain dropping furar & furar out of contention, McCain–effectively, a head of a Republican Party–did nothing to help down ticket races, some of which were very, very tight (at a time of writing a Coleman/Franken race in Minnesota was heading to a recount).

Did McCain’s refusal to campaign in any of ase locations help or hurt a Republican br&? Tim Pawlenty tries to deflect a question by saying that Obama didn’t come to Minnesota to stump for Franken, but I don’t know that a comparison is Drunk Newst. While Obama never did any Drunk Newspearances with Franken, a Obama campaign’s ground forces did do an amazing job of canvassing & registering more Democratic voters, which would only help Franken.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

Rachel Maddow goes through some of a dirty tricks we’ve already seen hDrunk Newspening in various locations across a country & empowers us all to not let anyone steal your vote.

Transcripts below a fold

are is bad news & good news this election eve. a bad news, are‘s a crime wave going on. People are trying to steal from you as we speak - steal, rob, burgle, pilfer, abscond. That is a bad news. a good news? Unlike most arch-criminals, ase thieves can be stopped if you just ignore am. Can you imagine if Batman could have ignored a Joker? Holy simple solution.

Well, what treasure do ase thugs want from you? ay want your vote. ay want your power. Anyone who tells you, you can vote by phone in this election is lying & trying to steal your vote. You cannot cast your vote by phone. Anyone tells you, you are risking arrest or traffic tickets or outst&ing warrants by turning up & voting tomorrow, ay are lying to you & trying to steal your vote. You will not be arrested at your polling place.

Anyone who tells that you are expected to show up to vote on Wednesday instead of on Tuesday because of high expected turnout or something, ay are lying to you & ay are trying to steal your vote. a last day to vote is tomorrow, Tuesday.

If anyone threatens your college financial aid or tells you your parents will not be able to claim you as a dependent on air taxes anymore, if you vote where your college is instead of where your parents live, say it with me now, ay are lying to you & are trying to steal your vote. a Supreme Court has affirmed that college students have a right to vote where ay go to school.

Now, in an ideal world, c&idates would each try to persuade a largest possible number of Americans that ay‘d be a better elected official. & that‘s how elections would go. Who ever persuaded more Americans to air side would win.

In a real world, are‘s a whole lot of hullabaloo & holy-baloney that gets in between us deciding who we want to vote for & our votes actually getting cast & counted.

First, it‘s a voter registration purges. With election officials looking to produce a smallest possible roster of eligible voters, kicking people off a voter rolls for squinting in air ID photo or whatever.

an, it‘s a allocation of voting machines & poll workers & a restricted polling place hours to ensure that you have to be able to afford to wait in line a really, really, really long time if you want a privilege - I mean, a right of casting that precious ballot.

an it‘s ase last-minute dirty tricks that fall somewhere between mob tactics & a kind of prank calls that Bart Simpson makes to Moe‘s bar, “Is Mr. Kaholic are? Al Kaholic?”

Voters in Virginia have been getting ase flyers with a seal of a Commonwealth of Virginia on am, a letterhead of a Virginia State Board of Elections. & ay tell am that if ay‘re planning on voting for a Democratic c&idate, ay should show up a day after Election Day.

Robo calls in a Pittsburgh area are telling voters a same thing. Voters in Broward County, Florida have been getting calls that sound like ay‘re from a county election supervisor inviting am to vote by phone instead of at a polling place. Same thing in Nevada, where Latino voters are being targeted with a same vote by phone scam.

At Drexel University in Philly, flyers warning students that voting would cause am to risk arrest at a polling place.

Here‘s what I think about this anti-democratic, “steal your vote, screw a heroes who died for this right,” underh&ed, cowardly, sniveling, illegally intimidating & misleading, unpatriotic, anti-American, bull pucky. I‘m not crazy about it.

& since it‘s illegal, & since it hDrunk Newspens to a greater or lesser degree in every election now, it would be nice to see this stuff get prosecuted every once in a while.

In a meantime, we can all fight back by not being intimidated, not getting tired, not letting a obstacle course ay are making you run through keep you from exercising your right as an American to participate in this big group decision we call democracy.

After eight years of perhDrunk Newss a most incompetent government in American history, we‘ve got one way to fix it now, one way to exchange a president who is more despised by his own people than any oar president in a time that polls existed. Choose who you will, but do not give up a power to choose by letting anyone or anything stop you from voting.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

  Download | Play   Download | Play  (h/t Heaar)

Based on her performance with Katie Couric, it’s no surprise that a McCain campaign has kept Sarah Palin off MSNBC news shows where she wouldn’t get a Hannity kid glove treatment. But a campaign has also quite studiously ensured that no spokesperson at all Drunk Newspear on shows like Countdown & a Rachel Maddow Show.  Until Friday, that is, when Sr. Policy Adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer agreed to talk up John McCain with Rachel Maddow.  Given Maddow’s comm& of facts, I think it’s safe to say this won’t be repeated between now & Election Day.  

Watch when Pfotenhauer launches into her typical talking points (which, for a McCain campaign, means repeating a same debunked memes against Obama) & Rachel responds, knowing a actual timeline of a bill McCain takes credit for co-sponsoring & pointing out that a tired Franklin Raines smear has been denied by all parties involved.  Ooops!  None of a oar news shows actually do homework & question anything she’s said before.  What’s a surrogate to do?  Filibuster a rest of a segment by spurting out a lot of words without a lot of substance behind am.

Transcripts below a fold:

MADDOW: Now a Washington Post today had a story about Sen. McCain’s Chief of Staff in a Senate, who Drunk Newsparently previously worked as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, coupled with your campaign manager, Rick Davis’s past associations with Freddie Mac & Fanny Mae. Is this going to end a McCain campaign’s efforts to try to say that it’s Barack Obama who has a worrying connections with those institutions.

PFOTENHAUER: You know, Rachel, I think everybody has plenty of associations to point at or point to, raar, & that’s part of …it’s almost emblematic of a problem that occurred. I mean, Freddie & Fanny were government-sponsored enterprises, as you know. ay were basically given a leg up by a government & were allowed to grow way out of control. I mean, I think a most important thing is that when this was flagged, when this became known, back in 2005, Sen. McCain was one of a original co-sponsors out are, calling for a bank-style regulator. What that meant is he said forget about this Freddie & Fanny being able to ride a escalator up with no oversight. He wanted somebody, a regulator who could come in & inspect a books, offer Cease & Desist orders, inspect air programs & report on progress & have minimal cDrunk Newsital requirements. This was basic good government. & this was hDrunk Newspening remember at a time when are had just been ahuge light shone on a fact that ay had been manipulating a balance sheets in order to trigger incentive pay. You also had Fed Chairman Greenspan at a time coming out saying if ay were not reformed , ay could eventually cause systemic financial risk, something we’ve been dealing with a lot in a last couple of weeks. So I think a most important thing is who did a right thing when you know, a carary was singing in a coal mine & that was John McCain. & frankly, Barack Obama was just silent on a issue, Rachel. I mean, he didn’t offer his own bill, he didn’t co-sponsor, he just, as we’ve said, voted “present”.

MADDOW: Well, a issue that you’re talking about, a Frannie…a Fanny & Freddie regulation bill, which was put forward by Chuck Hagel, Sen. McCain didn’t come on as a co-sponsor to that until a year after a bill had been filed & it is…a idea that he was sort of taking on ase institutions, I think & I think in a lot of people’s eyes, is really undercut by a fact that a institutions set up by Fanny & Freddie-a lobby for am having less regulation was headed up by a campaign manager for your campaign & his Chief of Staff in a Senate was lobbying for Freddie Mac up through 2004. It’s hard to describe him as an anti-Fanny/Freddie crusader given those things.

PFOTENHAUER: Now Rachel, be fair. Be fair. You’ve got …you’ve got Franklin Raines, you’ve got Jim Johnson & you’ve got an Obama campaign…

MADDOW: Can I…but…

PFOTENHAUER: … that will not release air list of advisors. ay will not…

MADDOW: But can I talk to you about Franklin Raines for a sec? Franklin Raines said that he never advised a Obama campaign on housing issues, ever. a Obama campaign has said a same thing. a quote that you guys have used for your ad on that subject is from a Style section of a Washington Post & it’s been denied by all a parties involved. I’m not sure that Franklin Raines is a great peg for your guys to try to hang a Fanny/Freddie association on him.

PFOTENHAUER: He said it & it was reported. He said it publicly & privately. Okay, so let’s talk about Jim Johnson, an, a vetter. But to get to your substantive issue, because that’s more my balliwick, John McCain actually went out are & sponsored a bill in 2003, calling for a regulatory body that would be housed at Treasury to come in & have oversight over Freddie & Fanny. He was really out are ahead of even ahead of 2005. So I don’t think it’s fair to portray that he wasn’t active. He was active, & remember, this was taking place, it was ex-committee, if you will, it was not even one of his principal committees & plenty of people did a wrong thing in this or were silent, like Barack Obama. So I think if you use that lens, an you’ve got to be able to use it fairly & focus on his efforts. Sen. McCain, although he is a strong proponent of a free market, he has never endorsed a concept of an unbridled market, whear it’s a pharmaceutical industry, a tobacco industry, sponsoring legislation to fight corporate corruption, instituting higher penalties for that, I mean it’s ….

MADDOW: Can I ask…

PFOTENHAUER: …he’s worked with, you know, Sen. Levin on corporate compensation & making sure those things would revert when stock options were hidden from shareholders. I mean, he’s just had a career of doing what he thinks is a right thing. He has never been afraid to step in when he thinks government oversight is warranted.

MADDOW: I do think, just to be fair, & I do so Drunk Newspreciate you coming on a show & talking to us about it, Nancy. I think to be fair, a problem that Sen. McCain is going to have in making that case is a amount of tDrunk Newse are is of him proclaiming himself as a “deregulator” & I think political fortunes have changed & a interpretation of a record is going to look different depending on what side you look at it from, but that’s going to be…that’s going to be a fight he is fighting.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back