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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
July 19, 2012
Rep. Michele Bachmann’s former campaign manager has joined the bipartisan chorus criticizing the Minnesota Republican for questioning the loyalty of State Department aide Huma Abedin and alleging she has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
“I have been a practitioner of tough politics for many decades,” Edward Rollins wrote in an op-ed for FOX News. “There is little that amazes me and even less that shocks me. I have to say that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s outrageous and false charges against a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin reaches that threshold.
“Her unsubstantiated charge against Abedin, a widely respected top aide to Secretary Hillary Clinton, accusing her of some sort of far-fetched connection to the Muslim brotherhood, is extreme and dishonest,” he continued. Rollins, like Sen. John McCain in a floor speech earlier today, called out Bachmann for writing a letter urging the State Department to investigate whether Abedin — a Muslim American and wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner — and other officials were trying to influence U.S. foreign policy to aid Islamist causes.
Rollins demanded Bachmann apologize for the letter, which was signed by four other GOP lawmakers, and compared Bachmann’s claims to Joe McCarthy’s hunt for communists in the 1950’s. 
“Having worked for Congressman Bachman’s campaign for president, I am fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts, but this is downright vicious and reaches the late Senator Joe McCarthy level,” he wrote.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78692.html
.
Ed Rollins RIPS 'EXTREME' Bachmann
Rep. Michele Bachmann’s former campaign manager has joined the bipartisan chorus criticizing the Minnesota Republican for questioning the loyalty of State Department aide Huma Abedin and alleging she has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
“I have been a practitioner of tough politics for many decades,” Edward Rollins wrote in an op-ed for FOX News. “There is little that amazes me and even less that shocks me. I have to say that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s outrageous and false charges against a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin reaches that threshold.
“Her unsubstantiated charge against Abedin, a widely respected top aide to Secretary Hillary Clinton, accusing her of some sort of far-fetched connection to the Muslim brotherhood, is extreme and dishonest,” he continued. Rollins, like Sen. John McCain in a floor speech earlier today, called out Bachmann for writing a letter urging the State Department to investigate whether Abedin — a Muslim American and wife of former Rep. Anthony Weiner — and other officials were trying to influence U.S. foreign policy to aid Islamist causes.
Rollins demanded Bachmann apologize for the letter, which was signed by four other GOP lawmakers, and compared Bachmann’s claims to Joe McCarthy’s hunt for communists in the 1950’s.
“Having worked for Congressman Bachman’s campaign for president, I am fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts, but this is downright vicious and reaches the late Senator Joe McCarthy level,” he wrote.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78692.html
.
July 18, 2012
Rep. Howard 'Buck' McKeon (R-CA) (Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)
These flying weasels change positions on a dime!!
" Defense industry-backed Republicans are so desperate to stave off the automatic military spending cuts that they’re trying to scare Americans about job losses and an ensuing nose-diving economy should the military spending cuts hold.
Except there’s one problem. Republicans aren’t supposed to believe that government spending creates jobs. But in this last act of desperation, however, it seems that Republicans pushing to preserve America’s bloated military budget have come to a pretty significant epiphany. Next week, three right-wing think tanks will co-host Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Reps. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) and Randy Forbers (R-VA) to “discuss the dangers of deeper defense cuts.” All four lawmakers are warning about job loss because of sequestration, yet they’ve all previously argued that government spending doesn’t create jobs: 
EN. KELLY AYOTTE
Now: “So we’re not just talking about the jobs issue, which is, of course, of concern to anyone who serves in Congress. We’re talking about lost lives if we don’t give our men and women the equipment that they need.” [6/24/12]
Then: “It’s not the government that’s going to create jobs in this country, it’s our small businesses, it’s the private sector.” [9/22/10]
SEN. JON KYL
Now: “The whole point here [staving off the sequester] is to try to get some economic growth, job creation, to get out of this recession.” [5/24/12]
Then: “Faced with the reality of historic unemployment rates and record federal debt, I had hoped that President Obama, by now, would understand that even more government spending doesn’t create jobs.” [9/09/11]
REP. BUCK MCKEON
Now: “Sequestration’s impact on the economy would be sudden and severe, … result[ing] in the loss of about 1 million jobs in 2013 and 2014 and a half a percent cut to America’s already meager economic growth.” [6/24/12]
Then: “We don’t look to the government usually to create jobs. What we like to see them do is get out of our hair and let us create the jobs.” [5/21/12]
REP. RANDY FORBES
Now: “For reasons of both national security and local jobs, citizens of Hampton Roads ought to carefully consider the sober assessments of our military commanders and leaders regarding the impacts of adding another $600 billion in security cuts to the $489 billion Congress has already enacted.” [10/08/11]
Then: “Congressman Forbes believes there is a simple truth when it comes to job creation in America: real solutions create real growth that generates real jobs. In order to make this happen, government needs to get out of the way.” [Forbes' website]
And outside of the hypocrisy, the GOP’s jobs argument is spurious. Republicans are holding up a new industry-backed study claiming the military spending cuts will mean a loss of nearly one million jobs. But experts have pointed out the report’s many flaws, mainly that government spending in non-defense sectors of the economy creates more jobs.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/07/18/543931/republicans-goverment-create-jobs-military-spending/
.
Republicans: "Government DOESN'T CREATE JOBS" Mantra, But NOW Government DOES CREATE JOBS!
Rep. Howard 'Buck' McKeon (R-CA) (Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)
These flying weasels change positions on a dime!!
" Defense industry-backed Republicans are so desperate to stave off the automatic military spending cuts that they’re trying to scare Americans about job losses and an ensuing nose-diving economy should the military spending cuts hold.
Except there’s one problem. Republicans aren’t supposed to believe that government spending creates jobs.
But in this last act of desperation, however, it seems that Republicans pushing to preserve America’s bloated military budget have come to a pretty significant epiphany. Next week, three right-wing think tanks will co-host Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Reps. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) and Randy Forbers (R-VA) to “discuss the dangers of deeper defense cuts.” All four lawmakers are warning about job loss because of sequestration, yet they’ve all previously argued that government spending doesn’t create jobs:
EN. KELLY AYOTTE
Now: “So we’re not just talking about the jobs issue, which is, of course, of concern to anyone who serves in Congress. We’re talking about lost lives if we don’t give our men and women the equipment that they need.” [6/24/12]
Then: “It’s not the government that’s going to create jobs in this country, it’s our small businesses, it’s the private sector.” [9/22/10]
SEN. JON KYL
Now: “The whole point here [staving off the sequester] is to try to get some economic growth, job creation, to get out of this recession.” [5/24/12]
Then: “Faced with the reality of historic unemployment rates and record federal debt, I had hoped that President Obama, by now, would understand that even more government spending doesn’t create jobs.” [9/09/11]
REP. BUCK MCKEON
Now: “Sequestration’s impact on the economy would be sudden and severe, … result[ing] in the loss of about 1 million jobs in 2013 and 2014 and a half a percent cut to America’s already meager economic growth.” [6/24/12]
Then: “We don’t look to the government usually to create jobs. What we like to see them do is get out of our hair and let us create the jobs.” [5/21/12]
REP. RANDY FORBES
Now: “For reasons of both national security and local jobs, citizens of Hampton Roads ought to carefully consider the sober assessments of our military commanders and leaders regarding the impacts of adding another $600 billion in security cuts to the $489 billion Congress has already enacted.” [10/08/11]
Then: “Congressman Forbes believes there is a simple truth when it comes to job creation in America: real solutions create real growth that generates real jobs. In order to make this happen, government needs to get out of the way.” [Forbes' website]
And outside of the hypocrisy, the GOP’s jobs argument is spurious. Republicans are holding up a new industry-backed study claiming the military spending cuts will mean a loss of nearly one million jobs. But experts have pointed out the report’s many flaws, mainly that government spending in non-defense sectors of the economy creates more jobs.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/07/18/543931/republicans-goverment-create-jobs-military-spending/
.
July 18, 2012
Obama Campaign On Tax Returns - ‘Honesty and Transparency’ Matter
The Obama campaign tweeted out a graphic this morning, showing the number of tax returns President Obama and Mitt Romney have released so far. “Honesty and transparency matter,” the campaign tweeted.
This should be produced as a billboard:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-camp-hits-romney-on-tax-returns-transparency
July 18, 2012
The bill would give people facing federal prosecution for marijuana possession the right to "introduce evidence demonstrating that the marijuana-related activities for which the person stands accused were performed in compliance with state law regarding the medical use of marijuana." It would also create an affirmative defense under federal law for marijuana possession.
"It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution or proceeding under any federal law for marijuana-related activities, which the proponent must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that those activities comply with state law regarding the medical use of marijuana," the bill states. The bill further clarifies that defendants can only be found guilty of a federal offense related to marijuana that is determined to be for non-medical purposes, and also makes it harder for the government to seize and destroy marijuana and related paraphernalia.
"No plant may be seized under any federal law otherwise permitting such seizure if the plant is being grown or stored pursuant to a recommendation by a physician or an order of a state or municipal agency in accordance with state law regarding the medical use of marijuana," it reads.
Other Republicans on the bill are Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.).
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/238597-house-dems-gop-propose-new-legal-defense-for-possession-of-medical-marijuana
Reps. Ron Paul, Barney Frank JOIN FORCES To Back Bipartisan MEDICAL MARIJUANA BILL
"..A bipartisan group of House members has proposed legislation that would make it easier for people to defend themselves in federal cases for possessing marijuana, if they can show that they are using marijuana for medical purposes in line with relevant state laws. The Truth in Trials Act, H.R. 6134, was introduced Tuesday by Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), along with an eclectic mix of 15 House Democrats such as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), and three Republicans, including GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (Texas).The bill would give people facing federal prosecution for marijuana possession the right to "introduce evidence demonstrating that the marijuana-related activities for which the person stands accused were performed in compliance with state law regarding the medical use of marijuana." It would also create an affirmative defense under federal law for marijuana possession.
"It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution or proceeding under any federal law for marijuana-related activities, which the proponent must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that those activities comply with state law regarding the medical use of marijuana," the bill states. The bill further clarifies that defendants can only be found guilty of a federal offense related to marijuana that is determined to be for non-medical purposes, and also makes it harder for the government to seize and destroy marijuana and related paraphernalia.
"No plant may be seized under any federal law otherwise permitting such seizure if the plant is being grown or stored pursuant to a recommendation by a physician or an order of a state or municipal agency in accordance with state law regarding the medical use of marijuana," it reads.
Other Republicans on the bill are Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.).
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/238597-house-dems-gop-propose-new-legal-defense-for-possession-of-medical-marijuana
July 18, 2012
" In 2008, John McCain kept as much distance from the then-president as possible, appearing with him for a brief, perfunctory endorsement announcement at the White House and relegating him to a pre-taped video appearance at the GOP convention in St. Paul. This time around, Bush was absent when his parents offered a high-profile show of support to Mitt Romney in March, confirming his backing of the presumptive GOP nominee weeks later in a quick, off-camera comment to a reporter while boarding an elevator.
By contrast, Romney and his fellow Republicans have spent the last three years doing their best to pretend W’s presidency never happened, acknowledging him only when they’re forced to and changing the subject as quickly as possible. The politics are understandable: The GOP’s strategy since 2009 has been to channel the public’s intense economic anxiety into a backlash against Obama that will restore the GOP control of the legislative and executive branches. That much of the country’s suffering can be linked to the epic economic meltdown that came on W’s watch in 2008 is not something they’d prefer anyone to dwell on.
But, polls show, most voters do remember what happened in 2008, and who was president at the time. This offers President Obama a potential opening to win reelection under economic conditions that you might think would doom an incumbent president. As I’ve noted before, there is research that suggests Obama’s approval rating and standing in head-to-head match-ups with Romney is significantly better than it should be based on the state of the economy – evidence, it would seem, that the uniquely catastrophic circumstances under which he came to power are affording him a benefit of the doubt from some voters.
In that sense, Bush’s reemergence this week is only bad news for Romney, and only good news for Obama. So it’s not surprising that the president scheduled a campaign swing through Texas this week, playing the Bush card without actually mentioning his predecessor’s name:
“We spent almost a decade doing what they prescribed,” Mr. Obama said. “And how did it turn out? We didn’t see greater job growth. We didn’t see middle-class security. We saw the opposite. And it all culminated in the worst financial crisis in our lifetimes, precisely because there were no regulations that were adequate to the kinds of recklessness that was being carried out.”He added, “I don’t know how you guys operate in your life. But my general rule is, if I do something and it doesn’t work, I don’t go back to doing it.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/in-texas-a-presidential-duel-over-the-economy/
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/18/the_last_guy_mitt_wants_in_the_news/
W Is BACK - The LAST GUY Mitt WANTS In The News
" In 2008, John McCain kept as much distance from the then-president as possible, appearing with him for a brief, perfunctory endorsement announcement at the White House and relegating him to a pre-taped video appearance at the GOP convention in St. Paul. This time around, Bush was absent when his parents offered a high-profile show of support to Mitt Romney in March, confirming his backing of the presumptive GOP nominee weeks later in a quick, off-camera comment to a reporter while boarding an elevator.
By contrast, Romney and his fellow Republicans have spent the last three years doing their best to pretend W’s presidency never happened, acknowledging him only when they’re forced to and changing the subject as quickly as possible. The politics are understandable: The GOP’s strategy since 2009 has been to channel the public’s intense economic anxiety into a backlash against Obama that will restore the GOP control of the legislative and executive branches. That much of the country’s suffering can be linked to the epic economic meltdown that came on W’s watch in 2008 is not something they’d prefer anyone to dwell on.
But, polls show, most voters do remember what happened in 2008, and who was president at the time. This offers President Obama a potential opening to win reelection under economic conditions that you might think would doom an incumbent president. As I’ve noted before, there is research that suggests Obama’s approval rating and standing in head-to-head match-ups with Romney is significantly better than it should be based on the state of the economy – evidence, it would seem, that the uniquely catastrophic circumstances under which he came to power are affording him a benefit of the doubt from some voters.
In that sense, Bush’s reemergence this week is only bad news for Romney, and only good news for Obama. So it’s not surprising that the president scheduled a campaign swing through Texas this week, playing the Bush card without actually mentioning his predecessor’s name:
“We spent almost a decade doing what they prescribed,” Mr. Obama said. “And how did it turn out? We didn’t see greater job growth. We didn’t see middle-class security. We saw the opposite. And it all culminated in the worst financial crisis in our lifetimes, precisely because there were no regulations that were adequate to the kinds of recklessness that was being carried out.”He added, “I don’t know how you guys operate in your life. But my general rule is, if I do something and it doesn’t work, I don’t go back to doing it.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/in-texas-a-presidential-duel-over-the-economy/
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/18/the_last_guy_mitt_wants_in_the_news/
July 18, 2012
Newt was right on Mitt releasing his Tax returns!
" If there is anything in there that is gonna help us LOSE the election, we should know BEFORE the nomination,...and if there's nothing in there, why not release it?.....(South Carolina Republican Debate)
Republicans are being hoodwinked by Romney....
" There is a lot of speculation as to why Romney has not released his tax returns. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post points to a possibility that Romney didn’t pay taxes in 2008 or 2009.
Bloomberg’s Josh Green also sees it this way,
“As a member of the ultra-rich, Romney probably wasn’t spared major losses. And it’s possible that he suffered a large enough capital loss that, carried forward and coupled with his various offshore tax havens, he wound up paying no U.S. federal taxes at all in 2009. If true, this would be politically deadly for him. Even assuming that his return was thoroughly clean and legal — a safe assumption, it seems to me — the fallout would dwarf the controversy that attended the news that Romney had paid a tax rate of only 14 percent in 2010 and estimated he’d pay a similar rate in 2011.”
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-17/whats-romney-hiding-in-his-tax-returns
If this is the case and it not impossible, but highly improbable, Romney would be smart to hold his tax returns close to his chest until after the convention. Once he becomes the official Republican nominee, then he will release his tax returns and deal with the consequences. The GOP will provide cover in that aspect, if he paid a very low tax rate or if he didn’t pay taxes at all.
You see, if Romney released his tax returns now before the Republican convention, and they showed no taxes paid in those years, there would be pandemonium in the streets of Tampa, especially amongst the Ron Paul supporters. This would be catastrophic for party unity. How could Romney not pay taxes? Well, one way would capital losses. During the crash of 2008 and 09 he could have lost a boat load of money which would obviously help lower his tax obligations. Also, as Greg Sargent points out, some tax analysts believe he could be using highly sophisticated tax shelters to escape U.S. taxes as much as possible.
All of this would be perfectly legal, but it would be politically damaging and deadly.
This is why I believe he will wait until after the convention when he finally secures the Republican nod. Once he seals the Republican deal, he will release he returns and go on a media tour explaining it away.
http://www.politicususa.com/romney-release-tax-returns-republican-convention.html
.
Is Willard Romney STALLING On Releasing HIS TAX RETURNS Until He Is OFFICIALLY Nominated?
Newt was right on Mitt releasing his Tax returns!
" If there is anything in there that is gonna help us LOSE the election, we should know BEFORE the nomination,...and if there's nothing in there, why not release it?.....(South Carolina Republican Debate)
Republicans are being hoodwinked by Romney....
" There is a lot of speculation as to why Romney has not released his tax returns. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post points to a possibility that Romney didn’t pay taxes in 2008 or 2009.
Bloomberg’s Josh Green also sees it this way,
“As a member of the ultra-rich, Romney probably wasn’t spared major losses. And it’s possible that he suffered a large enough capital loss that, carried forward and coupled with his various offshore tax havens, he wound up paying no U.S. federal taxes at all in 2009. If true, this would be politically deadly for him. Even assuming that his return was thoroughly clean and legal — a safe assumption, it seems to me — the fallout would dwarf the controversy that attended the news that Romney had paid a tax rate of only 14 percent in 2010 and estimated he’d pay a similar rate in 2011.”
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-17/whats-romney-hiding-in-his-tax-returns
If this is the case and it not impossible, but highly improbable, Romney would be smart to hold his tax returns close to his chest until after the convention. Once he becomes the official Republican nominee, then he will release his tax returns and deal with the consequences. The GOP will provide cover in that aspect, if he paid a very low tax rate or if he didn’t pay taxes at all.
You see, if Romney released his tax returns now before the Republican convention, and they showed no taxes paid in those years, there would be pandemonium in the streets of Tampa, especially amongst the Ron Paul supporters.
This would be catastrophic for party unity. How could Romney not pay taxes? Well, one way would capital losses. During the crash of 2008 and 09 he could have lost a boat load of money which would obviously help lower his tax obligations. Also, as Greg Sargent points out, some tax analysts believe he could be using highly sophisticated tax shelters to escape U.S. taxes as much as possible.
All of this would be perfectly legal, but it would be politically damaging and deadly.
This is why I believe he will wait until after the convention when he finally secures the Republican nod. Once he seals the Republican deal, he will release he returns and go on a media tour explaining it away.
http://www.politicususa.com/romney-release-tax-returns-republican-convention.html
.
July 17, 2012
Gawker:
Ask and ye shall receive. http://gawker.com/5926646/where-is-the-woman-who-allegedly-had-hot-lesbian-sex-with-floridas-lieutenant-governor-in-her-office Today we told you about the sex scandal surrounding Florida Lieutenant Governor Jennifer Carroll—specifically, that Carletha Cole, a former aide of Carroll's, says that she walked in on the Lt. Gov being orally serviced by Beatriz Ramos, her travel aide.
To refresh your memory:
(Cole) walked into the Lt. Governors Jennifer Carroll's office and observed the Lt. Governor sitting at her desk with her foot up on the cadenza and her skirt hiked up. Beatrice Ramos was kneeling in front of Carroll, poised as if she (Ramos) was about to or had performed oral sex on the Lt. Governor.
http://gawker.com/5926646/where-is-the-woman-who-allegedly-had-hot-lesbian-sex-with-floridas-lieutenant-governor-in-her-office
Cole was later fired. Drama ensued. The allegations came out. Jennifer Carroll denied being a lesbian. And here we are.
The only missing piece in this textbook Female Republican Lesbian Sex Scandal Allegations Which May or May Not Be True story: a photo of Beatriz Ramos, the alleged servicer. Well, according to Steven Andrews, Carletha Cole's attorney, the woman in the center of the photo above, wearing black and looking over Jennifer Carroll's right shoulder, is Beatriz Ramos. "She was identified by our client Ms. Cole," says Andrews. The photo is from Treasure Coast, Florida newspaper photographer Juan Dale Brown, from a slide show of photos of an event that Carroll attended at Indian River State College.
http://gawker.com/5926742/here-is-the-woman-that-another-woman-says-orally-serviced-floridas-lieutenant-governor-allegedly
Here Is the Woman That Another Woman Says ORALLY SERVICED Florida Republican LT. Governor, Allegedly
Gawker:
Ask and ye shall receive. http://gawker.com/5926646/where-is-the-woman-who-allegedly-had-hot-lesbian-sex-with-floridas-lieutenant-governor-in-her-office Today we told you about the sex scandal surrounding Florida Lieutenant Governor Jennifer Carroll—specifically, that Carletha Cole, a former aide of Carroll's, says that she walked in on the Lt. Gov being orally serviced by Beatriz Ramos, her travel aide.
To refresh your memory:
(Cole) walked into the Lt. Governors Jennifer Carroll's office and observed the Lt. Governor sitting at her desk with her foot up on the cadenza and her skirt hiked up.
Beatrice Ramos was kneeling in front of Carroll, poised as if she (Ramos) was about to or had performed oral sex on the Lt. Governor.
http://gawker.com/5926646/where-is-the-woman-who-allegedly-had-hot-lesbian-sex-with-floridas-lieutenant-governor-in-her-office
Cole was later fired. Drama ensued. The allegations came out. Jennifer Carroll denied being a lesbian. And here we are.
The only missing piece in this textbook Female Republican Lesbian Sex Scandal Allegations Which May or May Not Be True story: a photo of Beatriz Ramos, the alleged servicer. Well, according to Steven Andrews, Carletha Cole's attorney, the woman in the center of the photo above, wearing black and looking over Jennifer Carroll's right shoulder, is Beatriz Ramos. "She was identified by our client Ms. Cole," says Andrews. The photo is from Treasure Coast, Florida newspaper photographer Juan Dale Brown, from a slide show of photos of an event that Carroll attended at Indian River State College.
http://gawker.com/5926742/here-is-the-woman-that-another-woman-says-orally-serviced-floridas-lieutenant-governor-allegedly
July 17, 2012
Holy Craps! Go Spitzer!
I advise everyone to check out the Godzilla-v.-Mothra death-battle between Spitzer and Maria Bartiromo from last Friday on her show on CNBC. Maria's always been a little nuts, but this latest crusade to rewrite history and cleanse ex-AIG chief Hank Greenberg of culpability in a fraud scandal that at the time led to the biggest financial settlement ever paid is an absolute head-scratcher.
The confrontation between the two of them on air is epic. In it, Bartiromo blasts Spitzer for going after Greenberg and accuses him of only targeting Greenberg for personal reasons. Spitzer counters by asking her if she's read a judge's opinion ruling that Greenberg had participated in a conspiracy to defraud. “Have you read this opinion?” he asks. She hedges, pauses, and here's the funny part: clearly she hasn't read it.
Spitzer asks her again, have you read the opinion? This time she decides to go all in, and immediately says she has read it. "I've read much more than I want to read on this case!" she shouts. Spitzer then gets so hot that he appears to have a prosecutorial flashback on live TV, saying: "You are under oath right now. I'm going to be very serious with you!" He again demands that she answer the question: was it not true that a judge ruled that Greenberg had committed fraud?
Humorously, Bartiromo explodes here and then retreats into the unfamiliar/uncomfortable territory of the truth: "I'm not under oath and I am not in your courtroom! You are on my television show!"
Crazy stuff
cont'
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/more-on-libor-plus-spitzer-takes-on-bartiromo-in-japanese-monster-movie-epic-20120717
WHOA!- Spitzer TAKES ON Bartiromo in Japanese Monster-Movie Epic
Holy Craps! Go Spitzer!
I advise everyone to check out the Godzilla-v.-Mothra death-battle between Spitzer and Maria Bartiromo from last Friday on her show on CNBC. Maria's always been a little nuts, but this latest crusade to rewrite history and cleanse ex-AIG chief Hank Greenberg of culpability in a fraud scandal that at the time led to the biggest financial settlement ever paid is an absolute head-scratcher.
The confrontation between the two of them on air is epic. In it, Bartiromo blasts Spitzer for going after Greenberg and accuses him of only targeting Greenberg for personal reasons. Spitzer counters by asking her if she's read a judge's opinion ruling that Greenberg had participated in a conspiracy to defraud. “Have you read this opinion?” he asks. She hedges, pauses, and here's the funny part: clearly she hasn't read it.
Spitzer asks her again, have you read the opinion? This time she decides to go all in, and immediately says she has read it. "I've read much more than I want to read on this case!" she shouts. Spitzer then gets so hot that he appears to have a prosecutorial flashback on live TV, saying: "You are under oath right now. I'm going to be very serious with you!" He again demands that she answer the question: was it not true that a judge ruled that Greenberg had committed fraud?
Humorously, Bartiromo explodes here and then retreats into the unfamiliar/uncomfortable territory of the truth: "I'm not under oath and I am not in your courtroom! You are on my television show!"
Crazy stuff
cont'
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/more-on-libor-plus-spitzer-takes-on-bartiromo-in-japanese-monster-movie-epic-20120717
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
