Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   United States Government decides that it's immune from questioning from the United States Government   (bloomberg.com) divider line 52
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

2805 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jul 2014 at 9:27 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-05 01:01:34 AM  
replygif.net

This would be my shocked face, which pretty quickly turned into rolling my eyes out the back of my head.
 
2014-07-05 09:35:12 AM  
'Why haven't you answered these subpoenas yet?  We've given you a year to answer!  Last day!'

'Uh, it's illegal for me to answer them..'

...

Anyone buy it?
 
2014-07-05 09:37:02 AM  
What is striking to me is that if Obama dodges investigation, Congress would flip their shiat, which is rather easy to do. But once the shoe is on the other foot, they do the same.

Hypocrites the lot of them.

/duh
 
2014-07-05 09:48:23 AM  
House Republicans wouldn't be forced to do insider trading if Obama hadn't set the tone for them to do that.

/Always blame Obama
 
2014-07-05 09:53:52 AM  
Gitmo.

Waterboard.
 
2014-07-05 09:55:44 AM  
I seem to remember the government deciding this one back during the Bush administration.
Also remember being called a terrorist for suggest there should be more scrutiny.
 
2014-07-05 09:59:51 AM  

Alphax: 'Why haven't you answered these subpoenas yet?  We've given you a year to answer!  Last day!'

'Uh, it's illegal for me to answer them..'

...

Anyone buy it?


Kinda. If you think about it, it makes sense because:

HypnozombieX: I seem to remember the government deciding this one back during the Bush administration.
Also remember being called a terrorist for suggest there should be more scrutiny.


Yeah, scrutiny was unpatriotic and prevented the War POTUS from focusing on the war then.
 
2014-07-05 10:03:15 AM  

Phil McKraken: House Republicans wouldn't be forced to do insider trading if Obama hadn't set the tone for them to do that.

/Always blame Obama


And you'll be right 95% of the time.
 
2014-07-05 10:07:23 AM  

jjorsett: Phil McKraken: House Republicans wouldn't be forced to do insider trading if Obama hadn't set the tone for them to do that.

/Always blame Obama

And you'll be right 95% of the time.


Hmm... let's see...

jjorsett (favorite: swears he's not a troll, which is sad actually)

Ah, yes. Well, carry on then.
 
2014-07-05 10:07:58 AM  

jjorsett: Phil McKraken: House Republicans wouldn't be forced to do insider trading if Obama hadn't set the tone for them to do that.

/Always blame Obama

And you'll be right 95% of the time.


That isn't fair.  Obama is only 50% black.
 
2014-07-05 10:14:45 AM  
United States Government House Republicans decide that they're immune from questioning from the United States Government law enforcement

FTFY
 
2014-07-05 10:17:45 AM  

DrBenway: jjorsett: Phil McKraken: House Republicans wouldn't be forced to do insider trading if Obama hadn't set the tone for them to do that.

/Always blame Obama

And you'll be right 95% of the time.

Hmm... let's see...

jjorsett (favorite: swears he's not a troll, which is sad actually)

Ah, yes. Well, carry on then.


wow.
your personal opinion and recollections, documented & backed up indisputably by your own musings...
Have convinced me his opinion is not valid and shed an illuminating light on his character & indeed given us all a window into his very soul.
 
2014-07-05 10:37:13 AM  

DrPainMD: Gitmo.

Waterboard.


I never thought you'd call for the waterboarding of GOP House members. Nice.
 
2014-07-05 10:50:09 AM  
Damnit, one of the few times I see the family name in the news its for this kind of shiat. The good news is, I'm pretty sure I am many times removed from that guy.


/Relatively uncommon last name
//Unless you are in California or West Virginia
 
2014-07-05 10:51:25 AM  
jjorsett:Derp


Why is it you Republicans lie at all times, when being accurate would work some of the time? I mean, why must you lie? Why do you insist that facts aren't important? If you weren't lying all the time, maybe sane people would pay attention to you when you actually have a point. But you lie even when you don't need to.

I mean, isn't lying a sin?
 
2014-07-05 10:54:51 AM  

ghare: jjorsett:Derp


Why is it you Republicans lie at all times, when being accurate would work some of the time? I mean, why must you lie? Why do you insist that facts aren't important? If you weren't lying all the time, maybe sane people would pay attention to you when you actually have a point. But you lie even when you don't need to.

I mean, isn't lying a sin?


I remember asking some of them if they could at least stop lying on Easter Sunday itself, a few years back.  Didn't work.
 
2014-07-05 10:56:32 AM  
The House members themselves might be protected by the speech and debate clause; trying to apply it to their staffers seems completely bogus.
 
2014-07-05 10:59:46 AM  

ghare: jjorsett:Derp


Why is it you Republicans lie at all times, when being accurate would work some of the time? I mean, why must you lie? Why do you insist that facts aren't important? If you weren't lying all the time, maybe sane people would pay attention to you when you actually have a point. But you lie even when you don't need to.

I mean, isn't lying a sin?


Lying is only a sin if you are lying to one of your own with the intent of hurting them. If you are lying to an outsider, of about an outsider to hurt the outsider, God allows for limited amounts of untruths to be told. Essentially, "God will not call you to account for the thoughtlessness of your oaths but for the intentions in your heart."
 
2014-07-05 11:01:56 AM  

abb3w: The House members themselves might be protected by the speech and debate clause; trying to apply it to their staffers seems completely bogus.


Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.

The immunity does apply to staff as well as legislators, however, I personally don't believe calling your friends with investment advice counts as activity inside the legislative process.
 
2014-07-05 11:02:48 AM  

abb3w: The House members themselves might be protected by the speech and debate clause; trying to apply it to their staffers seems completely bogus.


exec privilege can extend to support staff.  This ain't much of a stretch from that.    I am curious about the definition for insider in extent to legislative knowledge.  I didn't think insider extended to that knowledge
 
2014-07-05 11:08:28 AM  

Techhell: ghare: jjorsett:Derp


Why is it you Republicans lie at all times, when being accurate would work some of the time? I mean, why must you lie? Why do you insist that facts aren't important? If you weren't lying all the time, maybe sane people would pay attention to you when you actually have a point. But you lie even when you don't need to.

I mean, isn't lying a sin?

Lying is only a sin if you are lying to one of your own with the intent of hurting them. If you are lying to an outsider, of about an outsider to hurt the outsider, God allows for limited amounts of untruths to be told. Essentially, "God will not call you to account for the thoughtlessness of your oaths but for the intentions in your heart."

 So it's not really a commandment. That wacky God!
 
2014-07-05 11:18:37 AM  

incendi: abb3w: The House members themselves might be protected by the speech and debate clause; trying to apply it to their staffers seems completely bogus.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.

The immunity does apply to staff as well as legislators, however, I personally don't believe calling your friends with investment advice counts as activity inside the legislative process.


If that were the case, there would be no such thing as insider trading. Everyone would easily be considered a "friend."
 
2014-07-05 11:35:14 AM  

incendi: abb3w: The House members themselves might be protected by the speech and debate clause; trying to apply it to their staffers seems completely bogus.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.

The immunity does apply to staff as well as legislators, however, I personally don't believe calling your friends with investment advice counts as activity inside the legislative process.


Calling someone to ask how pending legislation would affect an industry would be very much part of the legislative process.
 
2014-07-05 11:51:42 AM  
www.thedailygouge.com

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2014-07-05 11:54:22 AM  

Brick-House: [www.thedailygouge.com image 345x231]

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 275x183]


It's even better when you don't RTFA. You couldn't have been more off-topic if you tried.
 
2014-07-05 11:55:44 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Brick-House: [www.thedailygouge.com image 345x231]

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 275x183]

It's even better when you don't RTFA. You couldn't have been more off-topic if you tried.


Apparently there's a 95% chance that's Obama's fault.
 
2014-07-05 11:59:01 AM  
Some animals are more equal than others.  Duh.
 
2014-07-05 12:00:46 PM  

TFerWannaBe: cameroncrazy1984: Brick-House: [www.thedailygouge.com image 345x231]

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 275x183]

It's even better when you don't RTFA. You couldn't have been more off-topic if you tried.

Apparently there's a 95% chance that's Obama's fault.


Oh right, I forgot about that upthread.
 
2014-07-05 12:01:30 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Brick-House: [www.thedailygouge.com image 345x231]

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 275x183]

It's even better when you don't RTFA. You couldn't have been more off-topic if you tried.


Just like these three stooges couldn't be more off topic.

michellemalkin.com
 
2014-07-05 12:20:03 PM  
If people knew what the government was doing, then the government wouldn't be able to get away with anything!
 
2014-07-05 01:07:05 PM  
If I'm not mistaken, and I may be, i believe this is the investigation started at the request of Senator Grassley because he thought the insider trading began with a leak from the White House.  However, the preliminary investigation has led to the beleif that the leak originated with republican Congressional staff.
 
2014-07-05 01:07:44 PM  
If I'm not mistaken, and I may be, i believe this is the investigation started at the request of Senator Grassley because he thought the insider trading began with a leak from the White House.  However, the preliminary investigation has led to the belief that the leak originated with republican Congressional staff.
 
2014-07-05 01:15:06 PM  

Alphax: 'Why haven't you answered these subpoenas yet?  We've given you a year to answer!  Last day!'

'Uh, it's illegal for me to answer them..'

...

Anyone buy it?


I'd have to dig through my Constitutional textbook to find where I've see a case like this before the SCOTUS.  But, IIRC, the staff are entitled to limited immunity but not complete immunity.  Simply put, they are entitled to less immunity than the officials they serve under.  The officials are only bound by the rules of each House.
 
2014-07-05 01:50:41 PM  
Maybe the SEC could just shutter the Representative's day trading account by suspending the entire brokerage house, unless it's Goldman. Too big to fail.

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-05 02:06:37 PM  

Brick-House: cameroncrazy1984: Brick-House: [www.thedailygouge.com image 345x231]

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 275x183]

It's even better when you don't RTFA. You couldn't have been more off-topic if you tried.

Just like these three stooges couldn't be more off topic.

[michellemalkin.com image 379x308]


Your attempt to deflect attention away from the insider trading of GOP House members is noted. Now fark off.
 
2014-07-05 02:14:08 PM  

Brick-House: cameroncrazy1984: Brick-House: [www.thedailygouge.com image 345x231]

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 275x183]

It's even better when you don't RTFA. You couldn't have been more off-topic if you tried.

Just like these three stooges couldn't be more off topic.

[michellemalkin.com image 379x308]


www.ricoh.com

You keep at that you precious little thing.
 
m00
2014-07-05 05:18:14 PM  
This is a tough call. The Ways and Means committee itself is a body which often examines executive departments charged with implementing financial law. The SEC is an executive department tasked with regulating financial law, and investigating financial crimes.

In the general sense, if the Ways and Means committee wasn't immune, then any time they wanted to investigate executive wrong-doing it would be payback time -- Nixon style. Oh the other hand, being immune means they can cut shady deals and commit crimes free from repercussions.

So I would say there probably should be body that can subpoena members of Ways and Means committee for financial crimes, but it probably shouldn't be the SEC. Maybe our Congress Cops should be a special judicial agency.
 
2014-07-05 05:20:52 PM  

strangeluck: [replygif.net image 305x244]

This would be my shocked face, which pretty quickly turned into rolling my eyes out the back of my head.


It's the fatal flaw of the Constitution - the Senate and House can form their own rules for how they run themselves. And this Congress has been exploiting that flaw to the hilt, including tabling bills instead of bringing them to vote, exempting itself from insider trading laws, and disclosing travel expenses. So why not blow off federal agencies while they're at it?
 
2014-07-05 06:31:54 PM  
Meanwhile, Benghazi, Tea Party IRS scandal, and birf sertifikat?

3.bp.blogspot.com
"You know the score... if you're not a  cop politician, you're little people."

i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2014-07-05 09:08:32 PM  

abb3w: The House members themselves might be protected by the speech and debate clause; trying to apply it to their staffers seems completely bogus.


But if it's to talk about what their bosses said in relation to how they did their job it may be covered.

All of that aside if any legislator spoke to someone outside of their offices then it should no longer get blanket coverage. The question the SEC is asking is essentially, did you talk to someone outside of your office about pending decisions. If the answer is no then they will just say no. If the answer is yes then they will try to use the speech and debate clause.

Insider trading is the worst sort of capitalism because it is, by definition, about as unfair as it can get. If the Senator (including his staff. It's a his ship, his responsibility sort of thing) is involved then he should get in trouble. And I say this as a conservative knowing full well that the Senator in question is technically on "My side". I don't care about sides, doing right is doing right no matter what side you are on.
 
2014-07-05 09:22:13 PM  

MFAWG: Calling someone to ask how pending legislation would affect an industry would be very much part of the legislative process.


But the allegation isn't that the "Asking" was about general or even specific effects that pending legislation might have on an industry as a whole, which by the way I think would be a valid reason to use the speech and debate clause, It is that a specific company was going to be involved and that it would be seeing more business, and more money coming in, if that legislation passed.

It's akin to telling someone that Dell was just about to be given a contract to supply 100k new computers to the government, which would make its stock more valuable.
 
2014-07-05 10:25:22 PM  
This is fairly consistent for congress.  They even balked during the William Jefferson corruption case, even though congress was controlled by Republicans and Jefferson was a guilty as hell Democrat.

Congress has always believed itself to be above the law.
 
2014-07-05 10:43:18 PM  

m00: then any time they wanted to investigate executive wrong-doing it would be payback time -- Nixon style.


In what respect, Charlie?
 
2014-07-06 01:05:49 AM  
This will be good, however, when we invade ourselves to steal our oil.
 
2014-07-06 03:14:06 AM  

Gyrfalcon: This will be good, however, when we invade ourselves to steal our oil.


No need. Corporations are already plundering our natural resources at our ultimate expense.
 
2014-07-06 09:50:33 AM  

MFAWG: incendi: abb3w: The House members themselves might be protected by the speech and debate clause; trying to apply it to their staffers seems completely bogus.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.

The immunity does apply to staff as well as legislators, however, I personally don't believe calling your friends with investment advice counts as activity inside the legislative process.

Calling someone to ask how pending legislation would affect an industry would be very much part of the legislative process.


Except when that person is not a part of the industry to be legislated. If that person is in a position that gathers and deceminates information for the purpose of making money off of the industry: i.e. - calling a FINANCIAL ANALYST at a FINANCIAL INSTITUTION about future changes in HEALTH CARE LAW is the very definition of insider trading and not protected by any Congressional or Executive Privalage. It crosses such a clear legal line that it is laughable to be up for debate.
 
2014-07-06 09:55:45 AM  

m00: This is a tough call. The Ways and Means committee itself is a body which often examines executive departments charged with implementing financial law. The SEC is an executive department tasked with regulating financial law, and investigating financial crimes.

In the general sense, if the Ways and Means committee wasn't immune, then any time they wanted to investigate executive wrong-doing it would be payback time -- Nixon style. Oh the other hand, being immune means they can cut shady deals and commit crimes free from repercussions.

So I would say there probably should be body that can subpoena members of Ways and Means committee for financial crimes, but it probably shouldn't be the SEC. Maybe our Congress Cops should be a special judicial agency.


And who would police the Congress Cops?

/sees a recursive thought loop coming
 
m00
2014-07-06 10:26:07 AM  

Kimyo: m00: This is a tough call. The Ways and Means committee itself is a body which often examines executive departments charged with implementing financial law. The SEC is an executive department tasked with regulating financial law, and investigating financial crimes.

In the general sense, if the Ways and Means committee wasn't immune, then any time they wanted to investigate executive wrong-doing it would be payback time -- Nixon style. Oh the other hand, being immune means they can cut shady deals and commit crimes free from repercussions.

So I would say there probably should be body that can subpoena members of Ways and Means committee for financial crimes, but it probably shouldn't be the SEC. Maybe our Congress Cops should be a special judicial agency.

And who would police the Congress Cops?

/sees a recursive thought loop coming



We're not 5 years old. Well, maybe you. Because the issue is more about the political agenda of who fills the ranks of the agency. The fact that some regulatory body has ultimate authority does not invalidate the notion of regulation as you suggest. The question is whether is whether that body is filled though politics or patronage. And this is the whole purpose of "checks and balances" and the reason we have mechanics like the President nominating a judicial appointment and Congress confirming it.
 
2014-07-06 12:35:45 PM  

ghare: jjorsett:Derp


Why is it you Republicans lie at all times, when being accurate would work some of the time? I mean, why must you lie? Why do you insist that facts aren't important? If you weren't lying all the time, maybe sane people would pay attention to you when you actually have a point. But you lie even when you don't need to.

I mean, isn't lying a sin?


Once again I'm accused of GOPism. I realize it might shatter your worldview, but A) I'm not a Republican and never have been, 2) I'm an atheist, and III) I'm an engineer. So, here I am, one who doesn't conform to any of your stereotypes of the opposition as a bunch of hyper-rightwing, Bible-thumping, stupid, anti-scientific whackos. Must be difficult to wrap your head around that. My only interest in the GOP is to infest it with some of my ideological fellow travelers in order to effect a course correction for our politics and our country. In a strongly two-party system such as ours, that's the only practical way to get change.

As for my contention that 95% of the time Obama is at fault, it may be somewhat an exaggeration, but one that's grounded in recent experience. Most of the dysfunction I've seen lately can be laid at the feet of his administration and his party. Some of it began and existed prior to his arrival, but if he actually wants to fix any of it and not just run his mouth, he's doing a miserable job of it.
 
2014-07-06 12:50:15 PM  

jjorsett: As for my contention that 95% of the time Obama is at fault, it may be somewhat an exaggeration, but one that's grounded in recent experience. Most of the dysfunction I've seen lately can be laid at the feet of his administration and his party. Some of it began and existed prior to his arrival, but if he actually wants to fix any of it and not just run his mouth, he's doing a miserable job of it.


I love how you say this and don't provide anything to back it up with.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report