Appeals Court Blocks Trump Appointee's Takeover of Web Nonprofit (politico.com) 90
A federal appeals court has blocked a bid by one of President Donald Trump's appointees to take over a government-funded nonprofit organization that fosters technology aimed at undermining internet censorship around the globe. From a report, shared by reader transporter_ii: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an order Tuesday morning preventing U.S. Agency for Global Media CEO Michael Pack from installing a hand-picked board to replace the previously existing leadership of the Open Technology Fund. Weeks after his Senate confirmation last month, Pack purged leadership at a series of taxpayer-funded media outlets, including the storied Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia networks, as well as the lesser-known OTF. Trump has taken the global broadcasters to task for being too critical of the administration and its policies, including its response to the coronavirus. Pack's drive to oust the leaders of the media outlets was seen as an effort to draw friendlier coverage. Veterans of the organizations have said the massive leadership change undermined their traditional independence.
Like Rwanda? (Score:2, Interesting)
Mu current anger and frustration with the Republican Party is summed up by Trump. Here is a "shithole country" doing it better than us.
There is no excuse for our dismal handling of the COVID outbreak. None. When I look at S.Korea, New Zealand, Norway and a few other countries, I just am dumbfounded that we have a President who is an utter buffoon.
Here are just a hand full of things that he CAN do and should do and could have done e
Re: (Score:1)
Lol wearing a mask would have accomplished the first step. Kind of difficult when Trump claims the virus is a hoax and his moron followers believe him.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The CDC said for two months, at the start of all this, not to wear a mask.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
And you know why? Because they knew that Americans are selfish bastards who'll gobble up the supply of surgical masks and medical professionals who NEED them will be running out if they told them that the masks can help stop the virus. This is why.
Re: (Score:3)
So what? They changed their mind as the evidence came in. People could have easily decided on their own to wear a mask if they wanted. The two main reasons behind this CDC advice were 1) they didn't think it would get this bad, and 2) they were worried there would suddenly be a mask shortage, similar to toilet paper shortage, if they advised everyone to wear a mask.
Competent leadership could have advised a lot of things without outright ordering it: advised staying home for those who can work from home,
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, the dying will continue until those left finally get a clue. Ok, carry on. The world can wait.
Re:Like Rwanda? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"in january trump declared it a national health emergency. "
January ?!!
Looks like march 13th
https://www.whitehouse.gov/pre... [whitehouse.gov]
On your other points Trump contradicted himself repeatedly.
Re: (Score:1)
So name the three action that S.Korea, New Zealand, Norway performed that cut back in the number of people and would be acceptable to the people here.
Mandate mask wearing, with penalties.
Institute and fund a national testing strategy.
Institute quarantine periods for international visitors.
Institute a national plan for ramping up mask production.
Provide bully pulpit leadership for mask wearing and social distancing.
We could not even close off the border to high infected places without being labeled as racist.
Sure you can. Europe would have been on the early list for border control. There would have been no accusations of racism if Europe had been included.
would be acceptable to the people here
The situation that Trump provided leadership for is obviously acceptable to no one, not even
Re: (Score:3)
Federal government cannot mandate masks or testing, up to the states.
Trump did force companies to increased mask production back in march. When did scientists start
Re: (Score:1)
There are already laws for quarrantining people entering the USA with a disease. Trump put that into effect back in January. To stop people without a sign of the disease would have required a law that option was something pelosi did not agree to so no law.
Made up BS (aka "lies"). The U.S. did quarantine an entire plane of people, and two shiploads of cruise passengers, whether they had tested positive for COVID-19 or not. No new laws were needed. The "pelosi bloacked it!" is just a lie you made up while typing this.
Re: (Score:3)
We could not even close off the border to high infected places without being labeled as racist.
I'll just focus on this lie (when you cobble together unrelated factoids to make a false claim, this is called a "lie").
To prevent the virus from entering and taking hold in the U.S. you need to stop everyone who might carry the virus from entering the U.S. unless they go into a two week quarantine. Viruses do not care what passport you carry, who you were related to, or where you got infected. All travelers, without exception, who originated in countries where the virus was known to be present needed to be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How about everyone wear an N95 mask? That is a good solution.
I have N95 masks. I had a handful before the outbreak. I wear them in stores or when I give blood, but they are very uncomfortable. I also have cloth masks which I plan to use for longer durations and when I care what I look like. So far, I've only tried them on. Even with three layers you can hardly tell it is there. Oh, I also use a dust mask to answer the door, because it is the fastest to put on. Putting on the N95 is a process and I need to check all the edges to make sure nothing is folded, etc
Re: (Score:3)
The CDC said for two months, at the start of all this, not to wear a mask.
The "watch dogs " left of their own accord after essentially being demoted had nothing to do with China.
The CDC has fucked up the test and the numbers from the fucking start. If a god damned car fell on your head and you tested positive, they call it covid death. there is no good data. It's ALL polluted.
Re: (Score:2)
"The CDC said for two months, at the start of all this, not to wear a mask."
Yes, that was bad.
"If a god damned car fell on your head and you tested positive, they call it covid death."
No, that is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been a few errors. e.g. A chap that died in a motorcycle accident [fox35orlando.com], but without additional evidence I choose to believe the statistics are generally accurate.
We'll have a better idea of it when the CDC annual mortality statistics are released in the middle of next year. Subtract this year from the 3 or 7 year EMA and you'll have a pretty good stab at the true impact.
Re: (Score:2)
... And a gunshot wound, car accident, and a broken hip [youtube.com] but again without additional evidence I choose to believe the statistics are generally correct.
Re: (Score:2)
the CDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump re-election campaign. Of course the numbers are going down.
Re: (Score:2)
Per the rest of the world, it's not [worldometers.info].
Well, at least not in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
Says the blowhard doing nothing but bitching.
You useless fuck
Re: (Score:1)
Fuckoff AC
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There may be more dying in Florida retirement homes than in New York, now that Cuomo and DeBlasio have cleared out the nursing homes by sending the infected there. What did they use to dig the mass graves in New York, where they've had ten times the number of deaths?
Re: (Score:2)
What I think sucks is that if this would have been taken seriously back in March by EVERYONE, we might be back to normal. The furloughs, working from home, government bailout money.. basically wasted because we're too fucking stupid as a country to listen to the medical experts. Our death rate at this point is far too high, it's sad.
Anyway, the elderly go to Florida in the winter, not the summer.
Government Funded Outlets (Score:3, Insightful)
...should stay out of politics altogether.
Re:Government Funded Outlets (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with government funding. It is politically funded or politically run that's the problem.
You can have a quasi-public body that is 100% funded by the taxpayer but which the government has no direct control over and can only influence the constitution of the body through mutual agreement. The BBC used to be run this way and was very very good indeed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like all those evangelical churches that got covid bailout money, meddle in politics and still claim non-profit status? I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
When they open up a radio station using government funds you might have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since they don't pay taxes, technically everything they do is government funded. Because whether you receive money from someone or don't have to pay money to someone, it means that you have more money at the expense of that someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I have a point. Those evangelical megachurches have radio stations, you know. And they don't pay taxes, and they get government money. Therefore, the government pays for those radio stations.
Re: (Score:1)
Then I have a point. Those evangelical megachurches have radio stations, you know. And they don't pay taxes, and they get government money. Therefore, the government pays for those radio stations.
Not take someone's money isn't the same as giving them money. If that was the case, you're welcome for all the money I didn't take from you. These churches are no different from Planned Parenthood, ACLU, or other non-profits that don't pay their 'fair share' of taxes. Some of which even only exist because of money taken from others and given to them (Planned Parenthood). You might cry they serve some kind public good or whatnot, but that just your judgement based on your subjective values.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but with taxes it is the same. If the government gives you a tax break and doesn't give one to me, and it uses my wealth to benefit all citizens, then it is transferring some of my wealth to you.
Planned Parenthood does not operate a radio station, which I believe was the item under discussion, please try to keep up.
Churches that get involved in politics should lose their tax exempt status.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but with taxes it is the same.
If the government gives you a tax break and doesn't give one to me, and it uses my wealth to benefit all citizens, then it is transferring some of my wealth to you.
No, it's not. What's the reasoning that makes it's different? What makes it different other than you want it to be?
Planned Parenthood does not operate a radio station, which I believe was the item under discussion, please try to keep up.
Congratulations, you've complete the condescension quest for today. Here's your badge.
Churches that get involved in politics should lose their tax exempt status.
Is it only churches that involve themselves in politics should lose tax exempt status?
If that is so, to be consistent should not all nonprofits that engage in politics lose their tax exempt status?
So with everything being political these days, we should get rid of all the 503c and other types nonprofit organ
Re: (Score:2)
politics, n.: the art or science of government
"Staying out of politics" sounds kind of difficult for government-funded outlets.
Re:Government Funded Outlets (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, in the case of Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia they were specifically founded to interfere in politics.
Oh, you mean **OUR** politics. Never mind, sometimes I forget that we're the exception to every rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Making it a requirement to stay out of politics is, by definition, an attack on their independance.
And by the way, would you say the same thing if they were critical of democrats and the left ? Of course not. You would be cheering and encouraging them to do even more politics.
And don't even try to claim otherwise.
Re:Takeover? He wants to appoint his own people (Score:5, Informative)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
The board has to be accountable to some authority or it's unconstitutional. See SCOTUS ruling in Seila Law vs. CFPB [google.com].
Re: (Score:3)
The OTF is not a government agency. It's an independent non-profit organization funded by grants from the U.S. Agency for Global Media as directed by Congress.
So no, the board does not have to be accountable to any authority in the sense that you're suggesting. It only has to comply with the conditions of the grant.
Re: (Score:2)
The OTF is not a government agency. It's an independent non-profit organization funded by grants from the U.S. Agency for Global Media as directed by Congress.
So no, the board does not have to be accountable to any authority in the sense that you're suggesting. It only has to comply with the conditions of the grant.
You should read Seila Law vs. CFPB again. The organizational structure you're claiming is unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
I have. The first mind-boggling fail in your analysis is the fact that Selia Law only applies to independent regulatory agencies, not to non-profit organizations that merely accept funds from the U.S. government. The second mind-boggling fail in your analysis is that the OTF has a multiple member board of directors, and Selia Law expressly noted that it would be constitutional to have " plac[ed] the
Re: (Score:2)
DRJlaw just beat you like a red headed step-mule, son. He fucking mopped the floor with you. That's gotta hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can say anything about how some as-yet-undecided legal question might turn out. Could go either way. If courts rule the structure is unconstitutional, that would be consistent with Seila Law. The court did not rule on the specific structure of this organization.
You seem to have a lawyer making an argument confused with the way things will actually happen. Every case has two lawyers stating opposing arguments. One of them is always the losing argument.
I'm not a lawyer. I do a productive job that
Re: (Score:2)
Stop acting like a lawyer. If you are a lawyer, quit and take up short order cooking. You are bad at lawyering.
Re:Takeover? He wants to appoint his own people (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be your opinion, but every administration has to have a legal basis for doing it.
22 USC 6209(d) isn't it [cornell.edu]. Administrations don't just get to fire and hire boards for government-funded non-profit organizations because they want to, and even when those organizations are creatures of the government created by law, those laws can have different requirements that must be followed.
Re: (Score:3)
It says on that page:
The "legal basis" is that they serve as long as the guy in charge approves of them.
Re: (Score:2)
The OTF [wikipedia.org] is not "RFE/RL Inc., Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks," and entity created by consolidating them, or an entity "authorized under this chapter."
So where is the legal basis again?
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see upon further legal review.
Re: (Score:2)
We have a preliminary injunction from a Federal appellate court. You're not making an argument, you're just hoping for a different result now.
Re:Takeover? He wants to appoint his own people (Score:5, Insightful)
THAT is just one example of his Corruption.
Here's another: going to his OWN properties for Presidential vacations and billing the taxpayer MILLIONS for: Secret Service, his staff, and others needed for a Presidency. That's fucking Banana Republican boy!
Wait, here's another: firing everyone who doesn't fall in line with his lies.
Oh wait here's another: using goons in the streets to escalate things and cause violence and thereby self-reinforcing the "need" for those storm troopers.
Oh shit wait, there's more: constantly denying reality to force his narative.
Lastly, everyone who mod's this comment as Troll or Flamebait is a Goddamn moron. And if you are American, a Goddamn traitor. Fuck you all!! [newsweek.com]
Re: Takeover? He wants to appoint his own people (Score:5, Informative)
Yep [washingtonpost.com]. And yep [vanityfair.com].
Next question.
Re: (Score:1)
So the real question is how do these costs compare to previous administrations? If they are in line with these costs, then either it just fine, or you must be disagreeing with the cost spent by previous administrations.
And you must take it with a grain of salt. Washington Post? Very anti President Trump "news" agency.
Lastly, if you disclose the costs of the hotel, is it wrong to do this?
Re: (Score:2)
So the real question is how do these costs compare to previous administrations?
Previous presidents weren't hotel proprietors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"So the real question is how do these costs compare to previous administrations?"
No, it is NOT. The question is who's profiting, the answer is Trump, and that's illegal. Period.
The answer to your irrelevant question, though, is that Trump costs more. The frequency and nature of his trips ensures that.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooooo, ad hominem attacks all around. So convincing.
Do you have any attacks for the Trump administration, since they provided the amounts that were spent? Do you have any comments on the amounts that were spent?
No? Thought so.
Re: (Score:1)
So, you're saying that you support the actions of Jeffrey Epstein? Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/12... [cnn.com]
Re: Takeover? He wants to appoint his own people (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing you said which isn't just your feelings is Trump made millions on his hotels renting them out to the government.
Got a reference where Trump made millions making the government use his hotels?
I know of a single event in Europe. The military chose the hotel with the _cheapest_ rate and enough open rooms within reasonable distance of their destination. It was a Trump hotel.
The Secret Service was charged more than $950000 for one trip to Trump's Scotland golf course. They are spending $179000 this summer alone to rent golf carts at Trump National Bedminster. They also paid $17000 a month for 3 months to rent out a cottage (an above market rate) at his Bedminster resort. Trump has played golf at his resorts roughly 250 times in his presidency, costing over $130 million.
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Pack Qualifications:
1. Appointed
2. Confirmed by the Senate
That's 100% qualified.
Re: (Score:2)
"installed" does not mean "qualified".
There are several examples of pets being elected Mayor. That does not make the cat or dog "qualified" to be a mayor.
(Trump himself is another great example of installed without being qualified, but that'll attract all sorts of opinionated argument)
Re: (Score:2)
The law and the constitution defines the qualifications.
Re: (Score:2)
The law and the constitution defines the qualifications.
In English, most people understand terms related to "qualification" for a job to be connected with demonstrated competence, rather than legal capacity.
By your definition, Cowboy Neal is qualified to be President of the United States--in fact he would merely be less unqualified.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh... I completely forgot about that alternate definition of "qualified". It doesn't get used that way very often in "common" english. It's more of a "legal term" in that regard, when the law is trying to decide whether or not something is legally allowed, rather than as you put it, competent to serve in the position. (it's been coming more into fashion lately though, due to the public awareness and questioning of "qualified immunity" that law enforcement has drawn a lot of fire for sheltering behind)
T's
Re: (Score:2)
Then every administration is wrong. But right now, this administration is in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah the classic "The only good american is a conservative american". Typical trumptard.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the question? Or is it why are there large, government-funded nonprofits acting as think tanks for the left, where that is defined as a funding mechanism for people to dlcome up with ideas and positions.
I don't know if that's accurate, but that is the claim.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is though when you talk you're hitting a lot of the righwing talking points, so it sounds like you're saying the liberals went crazy so you decided to throw your lot in with the pro-crime (Trump pardons people who commit crimes on his behalf, this happened recently), anti-constitution (Trump pardoned Arpio who was convicted of violating the constitution), anti states rights and pro police state party (anonymous feds are assaulting and kidnapping peaceful protestors in Oregon).
I'll get downmodded for p
This is what first amendment violations look like (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what violation of the first amendment looks like. Installing cronies into government communication to replace criticism of the government with propaganda.
At least the BBC in the UK and the CBC in Canada (both are government funded) tends to criticize all parties in the government, however in Canada, the CBC is too much of a butt-kiss to the Liberal party and that tends to call for defunding the CBC by right-wings.
But Canada does not have an equal to the first amendment, so the government is literate
Obama, Clinton, Bush appointees (Score:1)
The appellate order was issued by appointees of Obama, Clinton, and WBush. No indication is given of the vote.