OMG, Prof Jonathan Turley just scared the hell out of me

[librechik]

on Olbermann. He is alarmed about BushCos aggressive prosecution of reporters and whistleblowers, says it is a very very serious threat, that Congress is comatose, and the press is the only check against the maladministration and now if we lose that we are in serious serious trouble. He repeated it is no joke, and if they win the AIPAC case we are really screwed--my impression is that the coursts have been ruling FOR this administration a lot lately--the case recently where the court dismissed the German citizen's case (who had been rendered and tortured, though completely innocent)

We don't have a way to fight these sadists anymore.

Now I'm listening to Malloy, who is merely throwing gas on my anxiety.

....eeek..somebody talk me out of this!

:scared:

[Semblance]

1. Turley

Turley is very good. He's been on Olbermann many times in the past few weeks with the same message: this administration is completely out of control. We seriously need to take back Congress. The corporate press doesn't give a damn.

[Hailtothechimp]

2. PRESIDENT LAME W DUCK

Don't you feel better now? He's not getting up from everything that has happened. Nor should he. Then we can start to get our country back. It will take time. But America is worth it.

[Lerkfish]

48. unless martial law is declared and elections suspended.

:shrug: I do not believe for one moment once the oil corp. diebold and halliburton have bought themselves a president that they are going to throw it away. If there are elections and they have to dump Bush, they'll replace him with Jeb or someone else tractable.

wish I felt differently, but I don't. History has shown that once absolute power is possessed by any group, there is no altruism gene that makes them come to their own enlightenment to abdicate their power for the good of the larger group.
That power must eventually be taken from them.

I leave it to you to figure out how that could occur. Hint: the French revolution.

[KansDem]

52. "That power must eventually be taken from them."

OK, what do we do? Does this involve the "R" word?

I'm all eyes...

[Lerkfish]

58. I'm just sayin....

once a group holds absolute power, I've never known them to voluntarily step down for the good of the people. That only leaves involuntarily. that could be from inside or outside.

:shrug: but that could come in many forms, including what happened in the phillipines and the former USSR where no violence occurred during a power shift.

I'm not avocating any action myself, just looking at historical precedent.

[Horse with no Name]

63. I agree 100%

"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
1984 by George Orwell

[kerry-is-my-prez]

3. He is great.

n/t

[babylonsister]

4. Where the FUCK are our statesmen who agree with him?

Where are our DEMS??????? Goddamnit!

[bluestateguy]

5. I'm still mad at Turley for his support of the Clinton impeachment in 1998

I have a long memory, and yes, I do hold grudges.

[librechik]

6. yikes, thanks for the info

he's their bastard, will they listen to him?

[lindisfarne]

25. Hmmm so is Turley calling for *'s impeachment, or is he only in favor

of impeachment when a blowjob is involved?

[Tactical Progressive]

30. Same here

And his behavior then takes away credibility now. I mean, just how much credence are we supposed to give a scholar who sees dissembling about a marital infidelity as a viable reason to impeach a President?

[Usrename]

34. I'm still angry too.

Yep, that impeachment was a legal disaster, and he was the only one who was for it. Rule of law and all that.

Even an idiot like him can see the danger we are in now.

[WinkyDink]

39. I knew I hated his mealy-mouthed self for a reason. Too little, too late,

Jon-boy.

[SeattleGirl]

7. Can't help you there, librechik. I'm trembling in my boots too.

I saw Turley on KO, and I was equally scared and pissed. WHO IN THE HELL IS GOING TO STOP THESE PEOPLE????? I'm so tired of them doing whatever the hell they want! I tell you, if the Dems do get the House back in November, I am going to kick ass and take names if they don't start some serious investigating, hearings, etc., and kick Pretzledent Asshat to the curb!

:grr:

[librechik]

8. they act like they don't have to worry about that

don't they? Damn, I'm afraid of November.

[SeattleGirl]

18. They sure do.

I just hope that the rumblings I'm hearing, that are getting louder and louder, are a harbinger of good things to come in November. One of the best pieces of news over the past few days are more and more reports of messed up voting machines, and more and more towns not wantng to use them.

[Doctor_J]

9. Congress is not comatose...

they're very aware of what's going on. The Repubs know they'll never be targeted, and Dems know that a) they can't do anything about it, and b) if they try, they'll either be labelled as crybabies or sent anthrax in the mail.

[gumby]

10. Turley has been speaking out very seriously

on Olberman's program recently.

He has clearly and repeatedly stated that our democracy is seriously at risk from BushCo.

[NanceGreggs]

11. Calm down.

I know things are bad. But they will get better.

Do I have faith in this government, this administration, these politicians who are currently in power?

Not at all.

Do I have faith in my fellow citizens not to allow the present corruption and timidity of those politicians, and the out-of-control arrogrance of this administration to take down their own democracy?

You're damned real I do.

WE ARE THE PEOPLE. And in final inning of this game, WE WILL BE THE ULTIMATE 'DECIDERS' as to who wins, and who goes down.

Bank on it.

[fooj]

19. Agreed.

:kick:

[BeFree]

27. Faith is good..

... but when the only recourse (voting) for the people to decide who wins and who goes down is controlled not by the people, but by computers and the few who program them, faith doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

[NanceGreggs]

28. Voting is NOT the only recourse ...

When more than 60% of the population is against you (and in a nation of 300 Million, that's a LOT of people), your days are numbered.

You may think that Diebold controls the voting (and to some extent, it does). But voting machines sink faster in Boston Harbour than over-taxed tea does does -- and that little incident triggered the defeat of an empire far more powerful than a handful of neo-cons.

This country did not survive a Revolution, a Civil War, and everything else it has gone through, to be brought down by an Idiot and his pals.

[BeFree]

31. His days are numbered, at the end of eight years....

...and after two stolen elections, wherein the people's voice was crushed. Do you think they will stop stealing?

After the tea went in the harbor, the guns were drawn, because the people had no other recourse. After that came the vote, but that's history now.

By all indications the last two elections were stolen. I'll ask again: what makes you think they will stop the stealing?

[NanceGreggs]

32. I have no doubt that 2000 and 2004 were 'stolen' ...

... elections.

But Diebold et al only works if the numbers are close. When it's down to 49-51, a manipulation here, an adjustment there -- and suddenly Mr. 49% wins, and it's believable.

As my (brilliant) husband said of the 2004 election: "The genius of Rove & Co. was not getting the majority of votes, but getting CLOSE ENOUGH to a majority to make a win plausible."

The reason, IMHO, the GOP are so obviously nervous about the mid-terms is that with over 60% of the country now being anti-Republican on the major issues, a 'manipulated' win isn't going to wash.

Repubs up for re-election are choosing to distance themselves from Bush, because they see him as someone whose patronage will lose them votes. The WH is scrambling to get Bush's poll numbers UP before November. They're begging for money for their campaigns, changing their positions on major issues almost daily, depending on the surveys in their own districts.

Does this seem like the behaviour of people who KNOW the mid-term votes are 'in the pocket'?

As I said, Diebold is your best friend when the vote is 'too close to call'. When your county, district, whatever, has shown a 60%-plus leaning to Dem candidates and the Repub suddenly wins, you've got some 'splaining to do.

And let's not forget that of all the corporations in the world, the LAST one that wants anyone looking into their operations is Diebold (and their ilk).

And not that you'd know it from the MSM, but there are lawsuits that have been launched all over the country against electronic voting machine vendors like Diebold.

In the 2000 election, few people were aware of the 'unreliability' of paperless voting machines. In 2004, MANY people were aware. At this point, there are MILLIONS of voters who are aware of the dangers here.

And I still believe that my fellow citizens may be a lot of things -- but they ain't STUPID. And they ain't about to hand over their country and its voting process to ANYONE. The 'fix' may have been in, but the American people, when all is said and done, will demand a clean game.

[marions ghost]

40. why do we tolerate

an election system in which the bar for Democrats to win is so much higher? You're saying the whole country must be in the toilet in order for Dems to have a chance of escaping election corruption...

So maybe things are SO bad that the Pugs can be exposed if they overstep their bounds again? Wait a minute. We're talking about the party that NEVER has any 'splainin to do.' If they want to rig elections 06 and 08, they have the means, motive and opportunity. And the same old obsessive greed. They would easily risk it out of desperation, as they know that there is no political will to prosecute and the laws have no teeth. Also we don't even have the protection of exit polling as we found out what that was worth too. Lawsuits against the vendors are helping a bit. Legal avenues are often like chipping away at a boulder, but you have to do it on the odd chance that 'justice' happens occasionally. But the election system is severely compromised. This is a long process.

I don't share your faith that 'the American people ...will demand a clean game.' It's not a matter of being stupid. They have been all too supportive of a corrupt game, either from complicity or feeling powerless to do anything about it. Not too many inhabit the middle ground between abusers and abused.

This coming election will tell us a lot.

[lostnfound]

47. They can find or create an excuse, and the corporate media will play along

Pass a law against exit polls (or did they do that already)?
Start a war, or have another catastrophe
Do a big smear of key Democrats, and the media will replay it 500 times a day, and then blame the Democrats for losing the election for the rest of their party

And in '08, if McCain runs he would be close enough to 50-50 for them to steal it.

Our fellow citizens are GROSSLY uninformed and have already handed over our country and its voting process.

[NanceGreggs]

51. Well, if the country is already 'handed over' ...

... I guess we should just all pack up and go home.

No point in participating in the process. No point in changing anything. It's all been said and done.

Too many people have already accepted defeat. I'm not one of them.

My attitude is that although this administration has become too powerful, that doesn't mean they are ALL-POWERFUL. I don't give them credit for having more power than they already do.

If they are all-powerful and can do anything they want, why is Libby awaiting trial? Why has pig-boy meekly gone before the grand jury, again and again, sweating bullets as he tries to plead his case? Why is the WH staff constantly changing tack, in order to get Bush's poll numbers back up -- when HE'S not even running for anything?

Give the enemy their due for being manipulative, for cheating, for lying and getting away with it - but don't credit them with being able to do it forever.

[BeFree]

57. What will stop them?

The media?

Fitz?

They stole two elections. What reason do you have to believe they won't steal this one? Please, I really need some really good news, and have been searching for some since 2000.

What is your concrete rational that they won't steal it again?

[NanceGreggs]

59. My rationale is what I've already said ...

... you can only 'steal' a win when it's close enough to get away with, because it is plausible.

In 2000, the country pretty well sat at 50-50 for and against Bush, and in 2004 it was still close to 50-50 on Bush's policies.

The country is now at 70-30 in not wanting to continue with the status quo. The Republicans are split on many major issues, while Dems are more united than they have been in the past.

We've all seen the poll numbers on individual candidates, and they will continue to be looked to right up to November. You can't have Mr. Repubican down at 30% in the polls, and then announce a major win at the last minute -- it's too blatant a manipulation of the voting process, and the GOP do NOT want any more publicity about electronic voting machines than the adverse publicity they're already dealing with. Imagine demands for recounts all across the country, everywhere -- in small counties, in major cities, in every state -- that is quagmire they don't want to step into.

I believe strongly that the country wants a change in direction, and that the Dems will get back into power. And when they do, JOB ONE has to be a total investigation into Diebold et al, so that we never find ourselves in this position again.

[robbedvoter]

65. Diebold only works when the numbers are close? Sez who?

Is there a limit to the hacking? How do you know the numbers were close in 2000 and 2004? (add 2002 as well)
I know that in 2000 6 million votes nationwide were NOT counted. That's close how?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

43. If we have that choice.

Germany thought they could control Dolphie. See where that got them?

[stepnw1f]

53. What NanceGreggs Said (nt)

[peacetalksforall]

12. I think it is obvious that most of our leaders are very busy on their

single track issues. Obviously, they must not have enough staff to cope with the onslaught of atrocities. It's a sad, lagging situation.

[babylonsister]

17. I think they had better find the time to address our issues that

weigh so heavily on us all. "It's a sad, lagging situation"? Bull hockey! It's overdue!

[Gloria]

24. Clark and Gore know of the threat.....very well.

They're about the only ones who have been out there on all of this. Clark knows we have to get one House or else we're screwed; and Gore has speechified about the threats to the Constitution.

[lindisfarne]

26. Don't forget Carter; he is criticizing * a lot and never did that with

preceding presidents. Something to do with former presidents should not interfere, but with *, he seems to have decided he must.

[Gloria]

66. OH, yes, my apologies--Pres. Carter certainly has spoken

out with integrity. No "triangulating" for him....

[suffragette]

13. Randi Rhodes was hammering this as well

and it just looks dire.
I saw Turley on Olbermann as well.
I wish I could allay your concern, but I can't because I share it.

I started thinking of the oft-quoted wise words of Martin Niemöller and how they connect to this and wrote this. Apologies for the imperfect paraphrase.

First they came after the Twelth Amendment
and I did not speak out
because I thought an election couldn't be stolen here.
Then they came after the Fourth Amendment
and I did not speak out
because I thought I had nothing to hide.
Then they came after the First Amendment
and I did not speak out
because I was not a journalist or a protester.
Then they came for me
and there was no Constitution left
to speak out for me.

[Beausoir]

14. Turley was so far under Clinton's bedsheets that I can't take a thing he

says seriously.

I remember...Turley had the SAME outrage over Bill Clinton having sex.

Turley is the boy who cried wolf.

He's gone to the well once too many times.

[Semblance]

16. Irrelevant

This isn't relevant. I disagreed with Turley on the Clinton thing, but he's been consistent. He didn't like Clinton's perjury. Turley describes Bush's crimes as far more serious than Clinton's, because they are.

[Syrinx]

36. yeah I remember that

He wants his face time.

I remember a story about a student of his trying to get him on the phone about some academic matter. He could never get him on the horn, until he pretended to be a booker from some talk show.

He's certainly not a saintly guy. But I trust his message, if I don't fully trust him.

[moondust]

15. Scary indeed.

It occurred to me that the Bushco criminals will likely commit even more crimes in their zeal to nail the people exposing their crimes (as opposed to an enemy of the state seeking to compromise national security). Where does it all stop?

[Swamp Rat]

20. Is it fascism yet?

:hide:

[Pachamama]

35. Sadly....

...yet, already began....

Sh*t Swamp'r, its getting real bad....

:scared:

[Swamp Rat]

42. Oi Pachamama!

:hug: pra os Pachababies de mim! :hug:

If we collectively get off our asses RIGHT NOW, we might defeat the lizards.



We have a nasty fight ahead of us... not just with Bushler, but with something way more powerful - climate change.

:kick:

[Pachamama]

60. Pachamama is pissed!!!

I just read some of the reports from Scientists about their predictions for the upcoming Hurricane season....its what we have all been fearing will be coming true...we ain't seen nothin' yet....

Yes, we do have storms ahead....political ones and for the survival of this country too...they are going to all be shaping the future.

When will humans remember that we are of this earth, not just on it? When will they realize its all interconnected?

On the lizard front, I swear, I couldn't sleep last night. I was shaking after reading the AT&T docs that were posted on Wired News from the Whistleblower Mark Klein. Things are worse than we thought, aren't they? I really do believe this is the tip of the iceberg. And I have a bad feeling they aren't going to just "go away"...they may want to be using their lists soon...

:hug: to you my brother...stay strong...

[Usrename]

37. Way to go swampy, not sure that is going to help much.

:)

librechik, although many of us share your fear, this is just way too much for one person to carry alone. Take on what you can, and no more. We will want everyone healthy and vigorous for whatever is coming.

Peace.

[leftofthedial]

21. Alas, it is much

MUCH worse than that

[SoCalDemGrrl]

22. Have faith -I mean KO & a few ohers are still on the air so there's hope..

Plus jeez, Bush's poll numbers keep plummeting and it appears that the sheeple are finally getting the message....

My son was in a red state recently and mistakenly wore his "Good Bush, Bad Bush" T shirt and a group

of old ladies came up to him and said they LOVED IT!!! So, maybe the tide is turning.

I have always believed that... "THE TRUTH WILL PREVAIL"

[grasswire]

23. consider the fact...

...that the FBI raided the office of a United States Congressman over the weekend, taking materials that were already under subpoena. Even the Republican Speaker of the House is upset about this attack on the separation of powers.

Now are you scared?

[genieroze]

29. There is more of us then there are of them?

[Old and In the Way]

33. The endgame seems to be underway.....

the pace of exposes and blatant illegal acts seems to be picking up. I don't think the game will end in a draw and I don't think the Boyking is going to politically survive his term.

[liberalla]

38. I hope you're right about

the Boyking not politically surviving his term.

W loses in the end. This kind of optimism is going to help me sleep tonight, and I thank you for that.

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. Why is Turley so worried about the AIPAC case?

and what does that have to do with protecting reporters and whistleblowers?

[Senator]

44. AIPAC lobbyists are accused of "conspiring to obtain"

Just receiving classified info is the crime.

It's what reporters do for a living. And whistleblowing is just disgruntled whining without the paper to back it up.

It'a a kinder, gentler 21st Century fascism.

(You were expecting goose-stepping?)

--

[H2O Man]

46. Not quite accurate.

Actually, the AIPAC indictments, which are public record, do not charge "conspiring to obtain." The charges are "Conspiracy to communicate National Defense Information" (two counts), and "Communication of National Defense Information" (3 counts).

Probably more important, if we want to focus on what is real, is that neither of the AIPAC fellows are journalists. One, Steven Rosen, used to have a US government security clearance, when he worked for RAND. He was fully aware of what activities are in violation of the laws that he violated.

These fellows are not charged with writing blistering editorials against the administration. Nor are they being prosecuted for writing boring letters to the editor. They are charged with getting military secrets from a government official, and passing them on to the foreign intyelligence service of a foreign country. This falls into the area we know as "espionage," not journalism. No where in the Bill of Rights are the AIPAC intelligence operatives who attempt to promote a US military strike on Iran granted special rights. That may be why they are spinning this as a "freedom of the press" case -- though it absolutely is not.

[Senator]

50. Not quite accurate either. The full charges are...

..."to persons not entitled to receive it." Both Rosen and Weissman are charged with this conspiracy count, Count 1. And while the "overt acts" includes Foreign Officials, it also contains communications with media -- which is the troubling part.

Only Franklin was charged with Count 5, "...to agent of foreign government."

Rosen was also charged with talking to Franklin ("did unlawfully, knowingly and willfully aid and abet FRANKLIN in the communication") in Count Three. This is the one of most concern in that, in absence of specific overt acts or an oath violation by Rosen, it seems to define the receiving itself as aiding and abetting. Journalists beware.

But beyond the legalisms, the real problem is that Gonzales explicitly supports their spin that journalists could well be prosecuted in exactly this way.

Note: I only know of the Aug 2005 filing. Has that been superceded by a later set of charges which are clearer and less troubling?

--

[H2O Man]

55. It was accurate,

as I took the words straight from the indictment, rather than making some up.

There is nothing unclear or troubling about the indictment. It has nothing to do with indicting journalists. It is entirely about indicting two people who were engaged in an unofficial intelligence operation, which included passing military secrets to a foreign government. To pretend that is a crisis involving the free press is an attempt to misrepresent the truth.

[Senator]

61. Yes, you took some words from the indictment

I just added some more in a post that speaks for itself.

You're clearly not troubled -- others are. And I would hope that all federal judges would share your opinion on the lack of implication, and therefore application, of this case. I'm just not able to muster that level of optimism.

In any case, dismissing concerns and calling people liars might not be the best way to make your point. But that's just an opinion too. Your mileage may vary.

--

[H2O Man]

45. I like him, but

the AIPAC case involves charges against one government official and two AIPAC officials who were providing US military secrets to a foreign intelligence service. The law these fellows are charged under has been on the books for decades, and has never been used to prosecute journalists. No journalists are being charged in the AIPAC case, just people from a domestic group involved in espionage, and a government official who provided them military intelligence that was being used to move us closer to war in Iran.

[The Backlash Cometh]

Half the reporters are already paid off.

The other half is just waking up. Good luck, Betsy.

[sinkingfeeling]

49. Welcome to the Dark Ages of America!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. The Bush-appointed courts are making mincemeat of our rights and laws

The other day I was talking to an acquaintance is a labor arbitrator. He was telling about cases where he got people who'd been fired for nonsensical surface reasons (but really because they had seniority and were thus expensive or for union activity) reinstated with back pay, only to have the employer appeal and win the case before Bush appointed judges for equally nonsensical reasons. He's been practicing for decades and has never seen the deck stacked so much in favor of employers, to the extent of violating normal interpretations of contract law.

[paparush]

56. IF we lose the press? IF? I'd say losing the press is a done deal..

[nolabels]

62. When did we ever have a Press, really?

The pamphleteers of the first revolution is all that was ever really needed when the fruit got ripe enough to pick. I will happen even much quicker than that this next coming time

[Nia Zuri]

64. Who do you think will win American Idol?