Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

H2O Man

(73,232 posts)
114. ?
Thu Jun 10, 2021, 06:04 PM
Jun 2021

I like and respect Rachel Maddow. I can't remember my mentioning her here on DU -- and certainly not in the context of the current DoJ situation -- but since you have, let me clarify my view on her. She's definitely one of the very top journalist-reporters of this era. Highly intelligent lady with a great education. And she has put together the best team of researchers of anyone currently on any channel.

More, I have watched her DoJ segment that does play a role in the discussions about the speed that the department is moving in. It's a topic with value. Yet it would be curious if that translated into a robust support of every post on the discussion threads -- at least in my opinion, though I recognize that others think differently than do I.

Let's focus for a moment on one of what may be the most important issues that Rachel addressed -- the DoJ spying on journalists (among others). One need not have their copy of Dan Rather's 1977 book "The Camera Never Blinks" handy, but it would be useful. For the spying upon journalists is not a new problem. The issue of "leaks" to the press was the original source of motivation for the Huston Plan in the Nixon administration. Or, in more common terms, it led to "the Plumbers." Which, among other bad, bad things, led to the break-in at Rather's home.

The House and Senate did have significant investigations of the Nixon abuses of power, and the DoJ did prosecute a fair number of those who broke the law. Not all, but quite a few. A lot of good came out of the investigations into Nixon administration and intelligence agency practices. A part was the concept of the FISA court, which opened in 1978. Considering the percentages of warrent applications getting approved, one can make a strong case that the rules of the FISA court system need to be up-graded.

The chances of Congress passing improved law on this would seem rather stark at this point. The republican party currently is channeling the pathology of Donald Trump, despite the expressed concerns of a few party members. Now, the Attorney General can change the department's policy, which is a good but temporary solution, since the next republican AG is likely to be as crooked as William Barr.

So where, a rational person might ask, does that leave us? Let's think: there are three branches of the federal government. Two of them would have difficulty doing much to prevent a future administration of over-stepping their authority -- something that happens frequently, and always starts by the entering of gray areas. So what might help us identify the gray areas from the definitely criminal ones? Might we consider the possibility of the judicial system?

Most rational citizens in the United States recognize that there is a US Constitution, and that it includes the Bill of Rights. That Amendment 1 was designed to protect a free press, among other things. The spying on journalists, while repulsive, has at times been in one of those gray regions, creating situations where federal prosecutors do not have quite enough solid evidence to be 95% sure of a conviction. But an area known as Constitutional Law -- based in decisions by the US Supreme Court (lower federal courts also have a role to play).

A good reference book for those interested in, but not really familiar with previous federal court decisions, is "The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding" (edited by Eugene W. Hickok, Jr.; University of Virginia Press; 1991). The second chapter provides an easy to understand explanation of major Amendment 1 cases. One of the good things about the book is that it uses court decisions that one may agree or disagree with, which offers the bonus of understanding how the issues involved are viewed and decided.

That's a great thing about the concept of a free press. A person need not be a university professor, nor a federal attorney, to read books such as the two I've mentioned. One can simply borrow a copy from a public library, and gain the benefits of reading. Maybe it's just me, but I think if one is upset enough to complain on a public forum about an issue, it should inspire one to know what they are talking about. I accept that others may disagree with me.

I am glad someone is calling out this bullshit. NewHendoLib Jun 2021 #1
+100 Sneederbunk Jun 2021 #3
I love her to death, but neither Rachel nor anyone else criticizing DOJ for not "cleaning up" DOJ StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #2
That may be MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #4
Same here SheltieLover Jun 2021 #7
If I am to believe Rachel... sheshe2 Jun 2021 #15
This StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #19
This is what has been keeping me sane SheltieLover Jun 2021 #24
I don't even watch tv, She, as I have no stomach for bs SheltieLover Jun 2021 #41
I know that, SL. sheshe2 Jun 2021 #45
I want to agree completely, as it would make me feel good. SleeplessinSoCal Jun 2021 #76
Pres Biden promised to be hands off with the DOJ, so ecstatic Jun 2021 #89
Well. sheshe2 Jun 2021 #105
We both have the highest regard for Joe and Barack. MerryHolidays Jun 2021 #104
Ditto. KPN Jun 2021 #67
The argument by the judge against trump in the Carroll case was that trump was not using his office JohnSJ Jun 2021 #10
True, but H2O Man Jun 2021 #12
Nailed it. sheshe2 Jun 2021 #23
I thought that you H2O Man Jun 2021 #31
No grasp? cilla4progress Jun 2021 #65
Seems to me like Garland made a wrong decision on this one. Bluepinky Jun 2021 #70
Not just this one; it's an ominous pattern reminisent of Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler. triron Jun 2021 #93
Stop with the FUD. DiamondShark Jun 2021 #112
that's what i'm thinking--in the name of bi-partisanship he's over fucking correcting. ugh! orleans Jun 2021 #74
Reminds me of Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler. triron Jun 2021 #98
For every court battle, remember one thing... DiamondShark Jun 2021 #111
You are right. H2O Man Jun 2021 #96
Yeah, Rachel isn't infallible.. she knows Cha Jun 2021 #43
My thought of what may be going on..... TheRealNorth Jun 2021 #44
You are dead on StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #49
Based on what IS visible though, they're cleaning nothing. You can put to one side anything that OnDoutside Jun 2021 #79
Unless you have an in with the Presidential Personnel Office, Office of Personnel Management, StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #81
I said "Based on what is visible" and by that metric it's pretty shit. OnDoutside Jun 2021 #85
It's not a matter of me being "content" StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #86
It actually is, and on the visible evidence of this thread, you appear overly defensive on the OnDoutside Jun 2021 #101
Almost seems like you are bending over backward trying to whitewash what is quite visible. Sorry. triron Jun 2021 #94
Not at all. I'm bending over backward trying to explain a complicated area of the law to people who StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #95
And you do?? Lol! USALiberal Jun 2021 #87
No, I don't nor do I claim otherwise StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #88
Perhaps the DOJ could improve their messaging then? nt PufPuf23 Jun 2021 #102
Perhaps StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #103
How does she know what's really going on inside the department? Ocelot II Jun 2021 #5
She doesn't leftieNanner Jun 2021 #13
Thanks elleng Jun 2021 #20
They've publicly announced they're going to fight the E Jean Carroll case, are you ignoring that ? OnDoutside Jun 2021 #80
K and R Ferrets are Cool Jun 2021 #6
Early on, I liked her. sheshe2 Jun 2021 #8
+1. Used to love MSNBC and Maddow, but switched to something else. Hoyt Jun 2021 #16
I don't know sheshe, but whether they are doing something behind the scenes or not, by the JohnSJ Jun 2021 #21
Ranting for ratings...great line. Love her or hate her, ya know this is going on PortTack Jun 2021 #77
She did the same thing during Obama's first two years ChrisF1961 Jun 2021 #82
I'm with her - every public action and lack of action since Garland took the helm RainCaster Jun 2021 #9
SheShe2 has a good point, Garland is supposed to get all that done in less than 3 months? We're not uponit7771 Jun 2021 #11
True, however H2O Man Jun 2021 #14
That made me laugh out loud. Hoyt Jun 2021 #18
The demand for H2O Man Jun 2021 #22
+1 uponit7771 Jun 2021 #27
Lol! StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #30
This sheshe2 Jun 2021 #32
StarfishSaver is a DU Treasure! H2O Man Jun 2021 #35
Thanks, friend StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #38
Great quote, but it was from Jim Palmer, not me StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #37
Thanks for that. Reminds me why I have her on ignore. Crunchy Frog Jun 2021 #46
Rachel Maddow is neither immature nor uninformed on political issues. Dark n Stormy Knight Jun 2021 #99
? H2O Man Jun 2021 #114
She has the right to her opinion... brooklynite Jun 2021 #17
Yes there was opinion, but there was also observations of actions, or lack of actions being done by JohnSJ Jun 2021 #26
Her assumption that all actions must be observed and if she can't see them nothing's happening StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #33
True, but the argument can also be made if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it is JohnSJ Jun 2021 #39
Gotta keep the ol' powder dry, people! Hugh_Lebowski Jun 2021 #25
Yes, we DO know the drill StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #29
I'm not a legal expert as you seem to be but it is evident to me that Garland... jcgoldie Jun 2021 #36
It may not be a popular political call, but it is a sound legal one StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #40
sure except that the argument is in defense of Donald Trump defaming a person he raped. jcgoldie Jun 2021 #42
The argument is NOT in defense of Trump defaming anyone StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #47
Was Donald Trump acting in his role as President when he defamed the woman he raped? jcgoldie Jun 2021 #50
It's very different StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #51
Of course he wasn't acting in an official capacity jcgoldie Jun 2021 #54
Because they need the court to rule on it StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #56
The purpose may be to get a court ruling.... TheRealNorth Jun 2021 #48
Actually it isn't. It's an argument that the president was acting Ocelot II Jun 2021 #55
thanks for the explanation... and based on that the question I have remains jcgoldie Jun 2021 #60
They didn't "take up the case" StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #84
Garland has been awful so far budkin Jun 2021 #28
The argument is that he isn't defending trump, but the executive branch to say what he wants without JohnSJ Jun 2021 #34
My god, he has been there for less than 100 days bottomofthehill Jun 2021 #72
It almost seems like Garland has been threatened by Trump or Repubs to not stir the pot. Bluepinky Jun 2021 #73
It's not right, and it's not ok budkin Jun 2021 #75
You are stating that Garland is being blackmailed? sheshe2 Jun 2021 #107
Thanks for pointing this out. triron Jun 2021 #110
Nothing in his background gave me high hopes. One of the few disappointments Biden chose. LizBeth Jun 2021 #92
Turns out GaRland is a HUGE deception (if he doesn't start doing his job soon). Justice matters. Jun 2021 #52
Who are you giving this instruction to? StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #57
I'm giving my personal opinion on a forum. Justice matters. Jun 2021 #58
I see StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #63
Ok. I have not been elected President of the United States. Justice matters. Jun 2021 #64
You think if he hasn't "cleaned up the house of the dRumpf left overs" in 90 days StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #66
Yes. Find another "Doctor" who is able to do the job completely. Justice matters. Jun 2021 #68
What's with the random dollar signs and capital Rs? StarfishSaver Jun 2021 #69
This message was self-deleted by its author vapor2 Jun 2021 #53
what can the DOJ do about the voter suppression laws jg10003 Jun 2021 #59
I think the criticism is that they could have interjected themselves somehow in the Arizona circus jcgoldie Jun 2021 #61
The canceR is spReading fast. Justice matters. Jun 2021 #62
Pressure from the media to take real action to secure democracy is a good thing. Pressure from the KPN Jun 2021 #71
Here's the video for those who missed it: Rhiannon12866 Jun 2021 #78
Thanks JohnSJ Jun 2021 #83
100% Agree. There must be a few Trump left overs from Trump's DOJ. UCmeNdc Jun 2021 #90
That's why I watch these people only during Republican Presidencies treestar Jun 2021 #91
Meh. Elessar Zappa Jun 2021 #97
Go Rachel budkin Jun 2021 #100
She is asking tonite whether Garland's DOJ will have the guts to open an investigation into Trump. triron Jun 2021 #106
knr triron Jun 2021 #108
Kick burrowowl Jun 2021 #109
knr triron Jun 2021 #113
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Rachel is really slamming...»Reply #114