FCC Republicans Refused To Give Congress Net Neutrality Documents (arstechnica.com) 99
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The two Republican members of the Federal Communications Commission have refused to give Congress documents needed to complete an investigation into the FCC's net neutrality rule-making process, according to a lawmaker. "Your refusal to cooperate with the Committee's request is unacceptable, it obstructs our investigation, and it prevents the Committee from having a complete or accurate understanding of the circumstances surrounding this rulemaking," U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) wrote in a letter to FCC Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly yesterday. There are "serious questions" about "Pai's efforts to organize opposition to the proposed rule with outside parties," Cummings' office said in a related press release. "Pai previously worked as associate general counsel for Verizon, one of the major opponents of the open Internet policy, and he reportedly 'enjoys the support of conservative think tanks like the Phoenix Center, the Free State Foundation and TechFreedom,'" the press release said. O'Rielly wrote an op-ed on the net neutrality rules in 2014, but only after he "sought edits on [the] draft op-ed from three individuals outside the FCC with professional interests that could be affected by the rule," the press release said. The Republican lawmakers claimed that President Obama had "an improper influence" over the FCC's decision and demanded documentation of all communication between FCC personnel and the White House, as well as calendar appointments, visitor logs, and meeting minutes related to meetings with the White House, plus all internal documents discussing the views and recommendations of the White House. They also asked for all documents and e-mails related to views of FCC personnel about the net neutrality proceeding. A Cummings staff member told Ars that the "request has the backing of the full committee and all the enforcement mechanisms the committee has, including issuing a subpoena." The committee has schedule a hearing for September 27 on the status of outstanding document requests to different federal agencies, and could seek updates on the requests to the two Republican FCC commissioners at this hearing, a Democratic aide for the Oversight Committee also said.
Hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
GOP has been investigating the hell out of Hillary's emails and boogers for the last 3 years. At least return the favor.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All right, so there's no indication of anyone being guilty of anything here as yet, but this doesn't say "hypocrites" to me, this says "hilarious."
Re:Hypocrites (Score:5, Informative)
Did you notice who's the one demanding the documents from the GOP FCC commissioners? It's not a Republican, FYI.
Re: (Score:1)
Did you notice who's the one demanding the documents from the GOP FCC commissioners? It's not a Republican, FYI.
Republicans are big on law and order.
Except when they aren't.
But sometimes a little baksheesh trumps the rule of law.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that confusing? I said that the GOP have launched an investigation, I did not say that the congressmen demanding the documents were GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No offense taken.
As we've seen with the Benghazi and Emailgate congressional investigations, there is a big difference between holding a congressional investigation and actually wanting to get to the truth about something. The way I understand the story, after having read several in-depth articles about it, is that the GOP House committee held hearings in order to pretty much make sure t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there is. They were given a subpoena and they refused to obey it. That's, IIUC, Contempt of Congress, and the penalty is whatever Congress decides. But even now it's clearly being asserted that a crime has been committed.
Re: (Score:2)
You could reasonably argue that the contempt was justified. That's different from arguing that it isn't a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
What was the penalty when Hillary did it for three years with her emails?
Re: (Score:1)
- signed Donald, Hillary, Colin, and Barack.
Re:Jail Them (Score:5, Interesting)
Srsly, why isn't this considered an acceptable option to this crap? It seems to happen every other month with each party simply refusing to give documents and testimony to investigating committees, then everyone bitches and moans and lets it go.
Why are there not more findings of Contempt of Congress, and why is Contempt of Congress seemingly punished with a slap on the wrist?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why are there not more findings of Contempt of Congress, and why is Contempt of Congress seemingly punished with a slap on the wrist?
For the same reason that incoming presidents have a tendency to pardon and/or overlook the crimes of outgoing ones. Any politician who reminds people that their peers can actually be punished, might eventually find themselves facing punishment too. Can't have that. Much easier to "live and let live."
Re:Jail Them (Score:5, Insightful)
*sigh
Throw the assholes in jail.
Seconded. And let's figure out who has been bribing them and throw them in jail too. I'm sick of every single government agency being completely crippled by internal corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure DC would have to build more jail cells. Figure at least 2/3 of each party plus half of the various alphabet agencies based in DC gets thrown in the slammer.
Re:Jail Them (Score:4, Funny)
It would give the Sergeant at arms something to do. Technically speaking, you could just find an empty meeting room, post armed guards at the door, it doesn't have to be an actual lock up.
Re: (Score:2)
If you could make it part of national law that you could receive money from others under the guise of "They support my point of view", wouldn't you do it? Comcast wants to give you $5mil because you have said a couple words against Net Neutrality. If they promise to grease your palms for the next 10 yea
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. It is my understanding that the US Congress inherited the British Parliament's right to find someone in contempt, and to indeed throw them in prison should they continue to refuse Congress's request.
Re: (Score:1)
It is my understanding that the US Congress inherited the British Parliament's right to find someone in contempt, and to indeed throw them in prison should they continue to refuse Congress's request.
This is correct. However, since Congress has no law enforcement, when they want to have someone arrested for Contempt, they ask the US Federal Marshals. The Federal Marshals take direction from the head of the Department of Justice - the Attorney General. This is why Attorney General Eric Holder had a warrant issued against him by Congress, but he ordered the Marshals not to obey, so nothing happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Put them in jail and then what? Either by law or tradition the committee members of every executive agency is split between the two major parties. The number of members on these committees is always an odd number with a majority with the party in power at the time. So, we take these Republicans, toss them in jail, and then replace them with some other Republicans, at which time those Republicans can refuse to hand over the documents. Rinse, lather, repeat.
I don't know who is the bad guy here. It could
Re: (Score:2)
Throwing them in jail doesn't remove them from the committee, it just makes them unable to attend meetings or vote on things. They could, of course, resign and allow someone else to be appointed.
Obstructionism... (Score:4, Insightful)
No matter where you are on the political spectrum, you have to admit to the obstructionism which the Republicans have used over the last 8 years.
This has effectively meant that nothing has been done (mostly) except the bare minimum, for the last 8 years. Now we see it in this particular issue- which should be considered by people in the "IT world" to be a primary issue: Net Neutrality.
It's like this: Without net neutrality the Internet becomes a walled garden for businesses who are already there. Which is good for those businesses. But it's also bad for consumers. You see it now with veiled attempts at cutting out media providers through data caps. If this issue is not resolved in favor of a level playing field or all involved- the promise of the internet could be lost in this country.
Which is to say- whatever services you use over your connection- will be those mandated by whomever has the power that week to reach customers at the lowest cost.
And guess what: It won't be the startups. That is a problem.
Re:Obstructionism... (Score:4, Interesting)
No matter where you are on the political spectrum, you have to admit to the obstructionism which the Republicans have used over the last 8 years.
This has effectively meant that nothing has been done (mostly) except the bare minimum, for the last 8 years.
The really amusing (read: evil) part of this is that these are the same crowd who then complain that "government can't do anything". Well, duh... it's a goddamn self-fulling prophecy if they're the ones in power and do nothing.
These clowns should get held in contempt of Congress and held without bail at Club Fed until they cough up the records.
Just imagine if these guys were Democrats... imagine the GOP uproar...
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem you are outlining is serious- their supporters do not care of they "pull the temple down on their own heads". They are absolutists. If they don't get their way- no one get's anything.
This isn't the way things used to be- and it cannot continue for much longer.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would I admit a lie is true? (Score:2, Interesting)
For the first half of those eight years, Democrats controlled the house and senate and white house.
So why should I admit to something that never happened? Why would you ask that people admit to an obvious lie?
Is this total ability to believe a lie something that has infected Democrats universally? I mean you would think it would be just a handful like Hillary but as you show, it seems to be the entire party that is corrupted absolutely to where they no longer will believe anything that is not a lie...
For
Re:Why would I admit a lie is true? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even then nothing could be done without a filibuster proof majority. When in the minority the republicans waged the filibuster to block just about everything. While both parties make use of it, the republicans brought it to a whole new level. The whole art of compromise has been lost to them. It's either give me everything I want or nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
While you are correct, that's not necessarily a bad tactic. If I may quote from a previous generation "Give me liberty or give me death!".
I don't have to approve of every time the tactic is used to consider the tactic reasonable as a tactic. But if you don't use it in moderation, you are just reaffirming absolutist power in whoever is stronger with no compromise considered. Clearly any attempt to compromise with the current Republicans is a very bad move. They'll take, but they won't give. What;s been
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If I may quote from a previous generation "Give me liberty or give me death!".
If I may quote, then "While he loved liberty, he detested the crimes that had been committed in its name."
Re: (Score:2)
That's fair, but beside the point of the argument. The tactic is not inherently reprehensible. Merely extremely dangerous. If you use it when it isn't justified (how to tell?) then you lose any reasonable expectation of compromise to achieve your goals.
Oh really (Score:2)
And how many times did Republicans filibuster again?
You are probably just as mistaken as Obama [washingtonpost.com], since you all get your info from the save hive-mind of lies.
Re: (Score:2)
It is hard to compromise with someone who refuses to even come to the table to discuss anything:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Every time the republicans try to make a stand it is the same thing from Obama, he won't negotiate anything, he wants exactly what he wants and no less. Can you blame congress for saying no?
Re:Why would I admit a lie is true? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually- it was only two terms of congress. 2 years- which you are referring to.
If you think it's a lie- then you and I have a different understanding of what truth is. That legislation was blocked because of amendments by the Republicans.
Why is your party holding hostage legislation by amending it with items that the Democrats would not pass? That seems obstructionist to me.
I'll answer the question for you: Because they can whine (like you) in the press and on comment sections- about how the Democrats torpedoed Zika legislation.
And why not? It's good for the Republican base- because they really don't care about anything that doesn't fit their agenda. It's good for the party because they can wave the flag about "stopping the evil Democrats".
And whether it's either party doing this- I don't care. Compromise is the core of constitutionality in the United States. THIS obstructionist move is the fault of Republicans.
You've also made the mistake of thinking I'm partisan. I'm not. But you need to call anyone who disagrees with you a Democrat.
Re: (Score:1)
Guess what eight minus two is.
Still not eight.
Like I said - lies. You can waffle over the detail of how big of a lie was being told, but that doesn't change the facts.
Re: (Score:1)
because the GOP totally didn't filibuster during the 2 years they didn't control congress....
Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
awww.
poor lil moderator got his feelings hurt by facts
Re: (Score:3)
The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority (barely) for about 5 months between the time Al Franken was sworn in and Ted Kennedy died.
That was it. And there are more obstruction techniques than just filibustering.
Re: (Score:2)
For something more recent, was it Republicans or Democrats that were blocking Zika funding [nytimes.com]. HMM!
Looks to me like: Republicans put poison pills into the funding bill, and the Democrats therefore blocked it. So, if someone says 'here's a bill that everyone really, really need, but we're going to eviscerate these 3 other things that you like', then you should vote for it? What do you think this shows? To me it shows that the Republicans are holding the Zika funding hostage, but I'd love to hear your explanation for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Democrats want direct funding for plan parenthood in the bill to help deal with Zika. Republicans don't want this, but would allow for states to allocate money as needed (including plan parenthood).
Democrats want this bill considered to be emergency funding, but Republicans have paid for part of the 1.1 billion dollar bill with 750 million from ~100 million of unused funds from Ebola and ~540 million from unused funds from the affordable health care act.
Re: (Score:2)
that's it.
keep pretending filibusters and holds and other legislative maneuvers the minority party can use to block bills and votes aren't a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
that's it.
keep pretending filibusters and holds and other legislative maneuvers the minority party can use to block bills and votes aren't a thing.
also, it was the first 2 years, not the first 4.
the first year of which was largely consumed by trying to fix the economy and pass the ACA. and even those two things were not uniformly popular within the democratic party, particularly once the president compromised with the GOP by removing the public option from the ACA proposal.
and lets bring up Zika.
lets do.
for
Re: (Score:2)
Don't bother trying to prove who's worse. Once you scale the historical context out far enough (at least a few decades) it balances out..
They're all criminals. Washington needs an enema.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't throw stones in glass houses (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It seems you haven't been paying attention for the last 8 years or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is what conservatives actually believe.
Witness the self-inflicted information bubble where black is white and up is down.
This is your opponent. A creature without reason or even a firm grasp on reality. Just smile, nod, then keep at arms distance. Hope they only harm themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
This is news? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You want to change this? Don't have government try to solve every last problem - this way you (as the oversight committee - ie the voter) is able to focus on the important items.
The less the govt is involved in the more you can see what's going on. The more it does everything the less you can do.
Example - speed limits shouldn't be the province of the fed government.
re net neutrality - maybe the FEC should be
Re: (Score:2)
Or you know, the obvious solution of actively enforcing anti-corruption laws and all those 'small details'.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you know, the obvious solution of actively enforcing anti-corruption laws and all those 'small details'.
Good luck getting them to enforce corruption laws against themselves. That's been the problem. There've been plenty of anti-corruption/oversight laws passed, but the government will never convict itself, particularly once it has become such a behemoth as it is today, controlling trillions of dollars.
The more power you allow a government, the more prone to corruption and tyranny and the less accountable to its' citizens it becomes. It's like a 'Second Law of Thermodynamics' for governments. It is inescapable
Show a fucking spine, congress (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't threaten to daydream about thinking about maybe issuing a subpoena.
Issue the fucking subpeona. When he doesn't immediately comply, charge him with inherent contempt of congress and have the sergeant-at-arms drag him forcibly in front of the committee to answer questions and jail him if he doesn't comply.
Congress really ought to build a Plexiglas jail cell in the Capitol visitor center specifically for government officials who refuse to recognize the subpoena authority of congress. Nothing would compel their compliance more than knowing that the alternative outcome may be high visibility detention facility where tourists come to learn about the many powers of the US Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Issue the fucking subpeona. When he doesn't immediately comply, charge him with inherent contempt of congress and have the sergeant-at-arms drag him forcibly in front of the committee to answer questions and jail him if he doesn't comply.
I know that in the wet dream of Internet users, that sounds really manly... but it doesn't quite work like that...
I'll bet 10 dollars that the FBI doesn't respond to the subpoena properly on Clinton until after the election...
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress' subpoena powers are covered by the speech and debate clause of the constitution, making their subpoenas immune from judicial challenge -- "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place".
This means that under the broad umbrella of congressional speech (which includes issuing subpoenas) they have nearly complete legal immunity, including from judicial intervention.
If Congress were more willing to use the force of constituti
Re: (Score:3)
The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress' subpoena powers are covered by the speech and debate clause of the constitution, making their subpoenas immune from judicial challenge -- "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place".
This means that under the broad umbrella of congressional speech (which includes issuing subpoenas) they have nearly complete legal immunity, including from judicial intervention.
If Congress were more willing to use the force of constitutional law at their disposal, we might have fewer dipshit bureaucrats acting like they were above the law. You fuck around in a Federal courtroom, and I guarantee you the judge will jail you for contempt so fast it'll make your head swim. Yet Federal officials seem to get away with flipping congress the finger, suppressing documents and dissembling under oath to Congress. Why?
Because, at the very heart of it, members of Congress have a highly tuned sense of self-preservation and are smart enough to understand that they might be on the other side of the gavel one day. At least this way they know that they can delay and obfuscate long enough to get away with things.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Because the real world isn't a law book or a class room...
There is a middle ground between "yes" and "no", the FBI can find all sorts of "reasonable sounding" ways to not comply, for awhile...
Re: (Score:2)
Issue the fucking subpeona. When he doesn't immediately comply, charge him with inherent contempt of congress and have the sergeant-at-arms drag him forcibly in front of the committee to answer questions and jail him if he doesn't comply.
Hey, great idea -- that Bryan Pagilano dude is TOAST.
Oh, sorry, wrong Congress.
Where is the comments from Republicans? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but he claims to have the backing of the entire committee, which has a Republican majority. It would be a pretty stupid thing to lie about since his fellow committee members can just deny it... Of course, being a member of Congress, stupid lies aren't out of the question...
Re: (Score:2)
Not even a simple email saying, "Representative Cummings' office is making these claims(see attached). Do you have any comments?"
The reporter attempted to cover for
Re: (Score:2)
why would you think this was a stupid thing to lie about
It's a stupid thing to lie about because it's black and white. To prove he doesn't have the entire backing of the committee, all they have to do is come out and say it, since they are the majority of the committee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Replying to my own comment:
In a recent hearing, the acting director for FBI's congressional affairs (iirc) was asked "What type of things does congress not have a right to see?"
The FBI answered this, before the conversation moved on:
"There is more to it than a simple answer. I think that each case is, uhm, sort of specific to its own set of facts.
I think we tried to be.. I think Dir Comey tried to be, as transparent as he could, with this committee, (something something) as responsible as he could be."
It so
Have We No Prisons? (Score:2)
Fire them (Score:2)