Staffers For Rep. Mike Rogers Apparently Claim They Could Sue Me For Defamation
from the probably-not-a-good-idea dept
I had a fun phone call with a reporter in Michigan earlier today who is apparently working on a story about Rep. Mike Rogers. In doing some research for the article, he spoke with staffers in Rogers’ office about some of the things I’ve written about Rogers and his position on internet surveillance and cybersecurity. The reporter told me that the staffers said they’re “well aware of” me, but that they felt I was “an extreme liberal” and that I was using “liberal” talking points to attack him. Also, according to this reporter, they said that they could sue me for defamation concerning things I’d said about Rogers. Yes, it’s come to this.
We stand by the things we’ve written about Rep. Rogers and find it rather unbecoming of an elected official to try to chill the free speech of those who criticize his statements and actions with implied threats of lawsuits to silence their public participation.
Furthermore, it’s telling that Rogers’ office apparently jumps to the false conclusion that my criticisms of his statements and actions come via some sort of “partisan” prism. As I have stated repeatedly, I don’t easily self-identify into the standard “left/right” political spectrum, because I don’t judge things based on any sort of partisan framework. I have been equally critical of politicians who are considered “liberal” as I have been of those who are considered “conservative.” My opinions are not rendered via a partisan filter, but what I consider to be what is best for this country.
Filed Under: defamation, free speech, mike rogers
Comments on “Staffers For Rep. Mike Rogers Apparently Claim They Could Sue Me For Defamation”
Suggested response:
Greetings Representative Mike Rodgers,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Striesand_effect
-With all due respect, Mike Masnick
Re: Suggested response:
*Mike Rogers
Re: Suggested response:
Nah, why tip them off to all the fun we’re about to have?
Re: Re: Suggested response:
Because when they go ahead anyway you’ll have the added enjoyment of being able to say ‘I told you so’ afterwards?
Re: Re: Suggested response:
Tim if it isn’t in big media, or on the drudge report, they think it doesn’t exist, and will have no effect. Todays politicians still believe it was a small group of large internet corporations that caused the SOPA revolt. They can not conceive of a world where newspapers and the talking heads on TV have have lost influence. They are disconnected from the reality of what is occurring.
So that isn’t a tip off, it is a joke at Mike Rogers expense.
Re: Suggested response:
Shouldn’t that be “Misrepresentative Rogers”?
It is a hallmark of extremism that anyone not 100% on board their agenda is considered to be diametrically opposite. Extremists often treat those close to their positions, but not entirely with them, more savagely than their true opposites.
Re: The church has always done that ...
calls them apostates and heretics … and treats them more savagely than the ignorant pagans because the heretics and apostates are far more likely to erode the established support of the one true religion … be it Islam, Christianity, Liberalism or Conservatism …
Re: Re: The church has always done that ...
… tells them to support those that are less well off, love one another…
See – this is true as well. Your statement does not really make any point as it is too general. Do all these organizations sometimes or always do this, or only sometimes. And is this part of human nature or is it exclusive? Hmmm… oh yes… – it is general to human nature and only occasionally true of some organizations. Specifics please. I am quite happy to support specific examples, but this is too broad. And if you were thinking of quoting the Galileo case, then you have a lot of reading to do – http://tofspot.blogspot.hk/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html
Re: Re:
…and yet, the Islamists are seen as the bogeyman by US Representatives. Extremism in all its forms shou8ld be pointed at and rationally debated – not, I assure you, in order to convince the person you’re disagreeing with, but those who are undecided.
Re: Re: Re:
I’ve seen this on both sides of the imaginary fence, from both liberals and conservatives because I have chosen to be moderate. I managed to get an explanation from one of them (I won’t tell you which side of the aisle she was on), but basically it’s about not knowing which side you’ve chosen to take.
That’s right, not choosing to pick a side means it’s unlikely that you’re supporting them, and by NOT ACTIVELY supporting them, you’re passively supporting the other side, like a bystander observing a crime and not even calling the police.
The fact that they take it so personally puts me off of having anything to do with any of them, whichever end of the spectrum they’re on.
Have you noticed that when one side lurches to a further extreme, they immediately assume that the opposition has also become more extreme?
It’s just a boring political trick.. If you don’t agree with them, your viewpoint is just a [communist/liberal/conservative/whatever association will get some people to dismiss your arguments].
Did they give you any information that they said was incorrect to be corrected (ie: why they want to sue for defamation)?
You on list
You name name.
Re: You on list
All our names are on the List, they save everything now.
If Rogers had any balls whatsoever...
…he would show up here and engage in debate. But of course he doesn’t — too cowardly, you see. He’d rather use the implied threat of litigation to try to silence those who are superior to him, since he knows that in a fair fight he and his inferior intellect would lose badly.
Re: If Rogers had any balls whatsoever...
He will go 100 % out_of_the_blue. That is all you can expect if he comments.
Generally, when people make claims about wanting to sue, it has nothing to do with what case there could be, but everything to do with how the persons feel…
People arguing from 100 % feelings, religion or politics (basically 3 words for the same thing!) are never gonna make a reasonable debate.
When that is said, I can see why people could get angry at Mr. Masnick since he has a habit of taking citations out of a context and rant/rave from that. It is fine when you are analyzing “facts” since their context is the contentious part, but for statements, it can easily be misinterpretation of context or wool in mouth talk. The only real way to take people up on their comments is in a debate, interview or another confrontation where the person has an opportunity to defend themself.
Heck, It is etiquette to avoid political subjects when opposing views are not efficiently represented even though I guess politicians have murdered that cow centuries ago.
Re: Re: If Rogers had any balls whatsoever...
You should never go full out_of_the_blue.
Re: Re: If Rogers had any balls whatsoever...
huh, it never occurred to me… maybe ootb is a politician. That would explain a lot.
Oh wait, only the centrists from both parties are in favor of widespread mass spying, and the far left and far right are opposed to it? Well no matter. I’ll just label you a liberal anyway. It’s easier that way.
~Mike Rogers
Re: Re:
What the heck is a liberal anyway?
No, seriously, I’ve seen such terms thrown around so much that they’ve lost all meaning by now. In this context, “liberal” seems to mean “poopyhead” more than anything else.
Re: Re: Re:
The way they have come to be used to represent politics aside, I always thought the terms were really unfair.. I mean it you look at the words themselves, liberal means related to freedom and conservative is synonymous with fearful and cowardly. Who wants to label themselves as cowardly and hates freedom?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. Just wow. Biased much?
Conservative means, “I like society the way it is and I tend to think that change costs a lot of money and often ends up worse than before, so I would rather just stay with what I have now and save the money.”
Liberal means, “I should have the freedom to do what I want without government interference. Since society is currently restricting freedom X, we should change it.”
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You know that everyone is both right?
There are things we don’t want to change and there are things that we want to change.
What you call conservatives and liberals in politics is the number of people who agree with what should change or not.
So I have to say that your definition is wrong.
Liberals don’t want forests to change, they don’t want to have to deal with pollution caused by mining or other things, conservatives don’t want mining closing and don’t care about pollution until they are affected by it.
I saw a questionnaire once that was supposed to tell you what your leaning was, most of the conservative ones where things about economic growth and companies, so if you were labeled a conservative you had a pretty good change of being a sociopath and if you were a liberal you would be a hippie flower throwing person. This is how the government sees the subject, so it is under those colors that you should look at it.
Also one should take into account the rate of social change.
This crap is complex, and it is by design, by allowing to be a lot of things and have so many ambiguities it becomes like the Bibble, Torah or Koran, you can look up just about anything and justify it and put a label on it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Reactionary for the Tea Publicans..Re:
Uh so does that make the democrats the conservative party these days? The republicans want to change laws hand over fist. State laws on voting, women’s rights and carrying guns to pretend you are defending yourself when you shoot someone who is different than yourself are all republican changes.
FWIW I think it is time to dust off an old word to beter describe the Tea Party types- Reactionary.
Re: Re: Re:3 Reactionary for the Tea Publicans..Re:
Enshrining the status quo, as they perceive it, into law isn’t a ‘change’ to them. It’s just an affirmation of what the status quo is.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Conservative means,
1) I like society the way it is
— No they don’t
2) I tend to think that change costs a lot of money and often ends up worse than before
— But they actively seek change at great cost to others
3) I would rather just stay with what I have now and save the money
— That is complete bollocks.
Liberal means,
1) I should have the freedom to do what I want
— Ya, within reason
2) without government interference
— Not to be confused with regulation
3) Since society is currently restricting freedom X, we should change it.
— It is a democracy, right?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No, it’s a republic.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
They still get to vote as though it mattered – right?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The People’s Republic Of Amerikkka.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Is E=MC2 a liberal or conservative concept?
If I told you not to use mercury to try to extract gold from electronics because you could die if you get it wrong would I be a liberal? but if I supported the government enforcing a ban on any experiment with mercury would it make me a conservative?
http://www.switched.com/2008/04/03/man-dies-trying-to-extract-gold-from-computer-parts/
Statistically, you can predict how someone will decide with a pretty good chance of being right if you know how he tends to view the world, for politics, the more egoistical you are the more republican(a.k.a. right wing, conservative) you are the more egalitarian your responses tend to be the more democrat(a.k.a. left wing, liberal) you will be classified.
Is not about change or not, is about how you believe it should change or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism#Right_and_left
If you doubt you should take the test.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
If you side strongly with economic interests over human interests you will be a right(a.k.a. republican, conservative) if you put people’s interest strongly in the front you will be a left(a.k.a. democrat, liberal).
This is how it is framed around the world.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
But the term “conservative” in its original meaning has nothing to do with extreme right, neither does “liberal” have anything to do with the extreme left!
The political spectrum is different from country to country and in many european countries the communists are extreme left, socialists left, liberals are center, while conservatives are right and anti-immigration, anti-eu parties are extreme right along with whigs.
When those things are said, you are correct about how american definitions work, but it is definitely not a global definition!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You honestly think one party has a monopoly on egotists? I really hope that’s supposed to be a joke…
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
It’s sort of a cynical or partisan view of the definition of fiscal conservative. Fiscal conservativism by definition places more weight on the individual than the collective. Whether that implies egoism (a subset of individualism) is a line of fire I’m gonna stay out of.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
PS I love how you cite a survey that explicitly opens by mocking the narrowminded two-point spectrum you’ve presented as gospel. The survey explicitly puts economic considerations on a different axis from human interests and is trying, apparently unsuccessfully in your case, to make the point that you can be both for economic interests and human interests at the same time.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Like I said, I wasn’t talking about the political terms, but the words themselves aside from their use as political terms. In other words, you look “conservative” up in a thesaurus, you get cautious, fearful, etc.
Obviously I wasn’t trying to say conservatives are cautious and fearful, thats not true thats why I was saying the terms are unfair because the words used for labels are not properly representive and not really well balanced. Politically speaking, they have both become labels without meaning in my opinion.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are three common orthogonal definitions of liberal and conservative, and they’re often muddled together.
Fiscal liberals and conservatives. Conservatives (AKA libertarians) place their faith in the individual, and distrust collectives and governments. Liberals place their faith in the collective to do what the individual cannot, and consequently drive proliferation of organizations and governments.
Social liberals and conservatives. Liberals value personal freedom and choice, with only the most basic of limits on either. Conservatives have a strong moral system that places limits on the choices and actions people should be allowed to make.
Progressive liberals and conservatives. Liberals (AKA progressives) view change as potential reward, and as such seek change if the present is seen as unsatisfactory, even if there is the possibility that change could make things worse. Conservatives view change – particularly into the realm of the unknown – as potential risk, and would rather stay with a tolerable present than venturing into the unknown and risking making things worse.
Individuals vary greatly between the three scales, though in terms of official planks the Democratic party tends to be significantly more liberal in all three than the Republican party.
Personally, I’m pretty centrist fiscally and socially, trusting neither the individual nor the organization/government, and having some but not strong moral beliefs I believe should determine the laws. I do however carry the (perhaps unfounded) hope that change will be for the better.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can’t tell whether that was satire or not. If it wasn’t, I can only imagine you’re using the extreme liberal’s dictionary, as no other on the planet comes close to the definition of “conservative” you present.
In terms of the basal meanings of the words, “conservative” is quite simply having to do with conservation – protecting, accumulating (i.e. not consuming), maintaining, being reserved.
As to what they’ve come to mean in the political context, see my post further down.
left vs right
There are quite a few things that I disagree with Mike on, but this is by far something we agree on. The fact that we put literally everything into the “liberal view” versus “conservative view” is the stupidest thing in the world. It forces idiotic attempts at “balance” for issues that should not even be political.
Standard code
Don’t sweat the labels. “Liberal” and “conservative” are code words, nothing more. To people who call themselves “conservatives”, anybody they disagree with is a “liberal”. To people who call themselves “liberals”, anybody they disagree with is a “conservative”.
They’re speaking in code. Correctly decoded, both terms just mean “bastard”.
Hiring a lawyer
So…. Is he looking at hiring Charles Cameron? Or perhaps one of the good ole Prenda boys? I heard they are good at these types of things.
This article can be summarized in four words – COME AT ME BRO!!!
Re: Re:
Beat me to it.
Re: Re:
Dozens of men surround Mike’s house, force their way in and tase him, from the outside people can hear “don’t tase me bro”.
In an office in Washington another Mike grins maliciously.
ps: No I don’t wish any ill will towards Mike, I love him, but other may not be so loving and he could be victim of SWATing by some.
Chillin I know but this world is not without its dangers.
Re: Re:
Don’t forget the mandatory “Challenge Accepted” meme 😉
be kind enough to tell them.
they could sue me for defamation concerning things I’d said about Rogers.
i bet a good lawyer could easily turn this into an intimidation case. maybe you should mention that to his staffers mike.
and its good to see that they have as much integrity as rogers himself.
Re: be kind enough to tell them.
for an aid to last, they need to mostly reflect the position of their politician. An aid might push an opinion a bit harder than their political master, to test the waters, if it all backfires they are the quick fuse that’s chucked.
“Also, according to this reporter, they said that they could sue me for defamation concerning things I’d said about Rogers. Yes, it’s come to this.”
I almost wonder if this isn’t so much a threat toward Mike/Techdirt as it is a warning toward the reporter for the upcoming article. Basically a “don’t use that site” mixed threat/warning.
Just isn’t enough context to know the whole thing. I’m sure that there probably is more to this story than just them claiming defamation as it’s likely Mike (et al) have taken some of Rogers’ actions and said they mean one thing when he may have had another thing in mind.
STILL, there is a better way to handle things than threaten with lawsuits. Offering an interview maybe that’s on a specific topic? Submitting a letter to refute/discuss some of the topics. The list goes on.
But alas, here we are. So before this gets too much fun Mike, let me go nuke some popcorn…
can’t fault rogers for being clueless, need to look at ourselves, he is an elected official.. look to the morons that elected him
Re: Re:
I’m here in Michigan but I sure as hell didn’t vote for him. I don’t know anyone who did – which says something about the type of people I hang out with.
When politicians get to doing things that are hard to defend their actions on, the best defense is always attack. Just stating such a line does not mean a court case. Doesn’t cost anything to use the news gatherers under the guise of news.
Our politics have become so divided over ideology nothing seems to be able to be accomplished. The tone taken to defend the various actions sound very similar to what I’m hearing in this article coming through.
Typical hypocrite
Rep. Rogers obviously doesn’t have the chops to actually address any criticism on its merits. He’d rather resort to ad-hominem attacks (i.e. incorrectly classifying a huge swath of adult, gainfully-employed, self-supporting, law-abiding citizens such as myself as basement-dwelling teenage outcasts).
We can already logically conclude that Rogers is ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest, and is thoroughly unfit for his position based on that alone. I firmly believe he’s willing to break his own oath of office, decimate the Constitution, and ignore the wishes and well-being of his constituents for the sake of making his friends and family more employable. If that sounds like me calling him out as a corrupt politician…well, that’s what he gets for behaving like a corrupt politician. I’d love to see him try to sue me.
Can't even get the political label right
“Extremist liberal views”? Um, what? Last I checked, Masnick’s views political views (as far as I can tell) tend to revolve around a) wanting the government to do it’s job properly without having to give it more power, and b) getting the government to mind it’s own business (usually in terms of the Internet).
In terms of the political compass placement, Masnick seems more centrist merged with “Internet libertarian”, if anything.
If Rogers does try and sue for defamation (which is rather hard to prove in America, from my understanding of the laws), I suggest someone contact the folks at Popehat and see what happens.
Re: Can't even get the political label right
And it’s even harder if you’re a public figure such as, say, a congressman.
Re: Can't even get the political label right
I would go with:
* Morally liberal
* Fiscally conservative
* Internet libertarian
How did I do?
Re: Re: Can't even get the political label right
Not well, as all of those terms are roughly as ambiguous as just “liberal” and “conservative”.
Re: Can't even get the political label right
“Extremist liberal views”?
“I have been equally critical of politicians who are considered ‘liberal’ as I have been of those who are considered ‘conservative.’ My opinions are not rendered via a partisan filter, but what I consider to be what is best for this country.” – Mike Masnick
One can surmise that what government considers an extremist view is anyone who dares to think for themselves and doesn’t tow party lines. Mike is guilty of thought crimes.
One would think that attacking someone’s First Amendment rights constitutes an extremist, anti-American view.
Re: Re: Can't even get the political label right
^ Again, my post. Don’t know why it’s AC.
Re: Can't even get the political label right
Sounds about right. I believe the correct term is “reasonable.”
Extreme Liberal eh?
Funny that I am staunchly against this NSA surveillance, and I lean conservative, in a Republican area of California, with a Republican rep that I voted for (LaMalfa) – who I’m happy to say also voted for Amash’s amendment…
And I fully agree with Masnick when it comes to Rogers’ position.
Hopefully Rogers gets his ass voted out next election.
Re: Extreme Liberal eh?
Why do people keep thinking that “getting voted out” is not a promotion as far as members of Congress are concerned? Unless you understand that they live in a gift economy and force the rest of us to live in the jungle or a feedlot, you’re just blowing the same Establishment dog whistles as they are.
Political Position
What an idiot. It’s obvious Mike is an anarchist.
This alleged suit is simply alleged by an alleged reporter?
Don’t make me laugh, I hate that.
Sheesh. This has got to be THE most unsubstantiable sympathy ploy I’ve yet seen.
If you found this out second hand from a reporter, rather than directly from Mike Rogers’s attorney(s), then I doubt that he has any intention of actually suing.
Re: Re:
If you found this out second hand from a reporter, rather than directly from Mike Rogers’s attorney(s), then I doubt that he has any intention of actually suing.
I agree. I’m guessing it was an intimidation tactic. They expected such claims would get back to me, and this is a way to try to scare me off. Similarly, as someone else noted, part of it was probably to try to scare off that reporter from writing his story…
Re: Re: Re:
I guess it was just someone running their mouth.
Re: Re: Re:
Scare Mike off? Good luck with that. The man has cojones.
it's spelled 'libertarian'
I’ve been reading techdirt since before these things were called blogs and can definitely, absolutely call Mike a libertarian (small ‘l’)
A bit hard to measure the benefit of an article that talks about a talk with a reporter who apparently had a talk with one or more persons who apparently are not the person who has been criticized here on numerous occasions. Unsubstantiated gossip is not particularly newsworthy.
times v sullivan
One would have thought that Mike Rogers’ staff would have encountered the legal reasoning behind Times v. Sullivan, which essentially makes it impossible for a “public figure” to successfully sue for libel, unless one is straight-out making up a story out of whole cloth.
Is Mike Rogers a pedophile?
I’m not saying he is, but I think the question must be asked.
I’m concerned that Rep Rogers is acting like he has something to hide. Unless he’s got some very dark, very young skeletons in his closet, I don’t see why he’s so worried about what a journalist is writing about him. What could he be hiding?
This is America, where anyone can sue anyone over anything any time. Don’t it just make you prouderncrap?
Maybe they thought you were just some kid in your moms basement.
Rep. Rogers maybe needs to learn to work the Googles and stop hiding behind his shallow understanding of the world.
Re: So why
do people call politicians liars and then act as if they are incapable of it? Why do you think he’s ignorant rather than compromised?
Fun with lists
It use to be a joke that if you said or did certain things you would end up on a government list. But now, we are all on a government list. Probably multiple lists so it kind of takes the stigma out of it. So now that we are all on lists, we should feel free to state our mind. Or can I assume that drone strikes are next?
Crap, a black SUV just pulled up outside, gotta run…..
I think sites like Daily Kos, The Blaze, etc, would be sued a LOT more if you’re liable for any ‘partisan defamation’.
Re: Re:
Red and blue are just different marketing campaigns for the same power structure. The only difference is in the wallpaper and which victims to blame for the party ad campaigns coming up vapor.
Out of the blue, its been coming a long time this, and you deserve it.
*Hug*
Does that cheer you up little fella?
Liberal is used when the argument want to be shut down and dragged to the dirt.
Point is, name calling is a age old trick used by bullies from the 1st grade onward, to see a politician use it is not surprising since 99% of them of never grown up.
Could sue for defamation?
Rogers “could sue for defamation,” huh? I could finally start practicing the piano. Maybe get really good.
But I’m won’t, and never will. And he won’t, and never will. Because in both cases, we’re just talking out our asses about stuff that we wish we could do, but can’t and won’t.
The equation...
In whatever argument you’re having…
1. You make your argument = 100
2. They immediately resort to name-calling while making their counter-argument = 100, – 25 for using name-calling in place of a rational argument
3. You respond with valid points supporting your case = +25
4. They respond by “going off the deep end” with baseless counter-arguments and more name calling = -75
5. You 125 Them 0 = Argument over
This is how a good percentage of political arguments transpire.
I'm so smart I posted this on the wrong discussion the first time...
In the absence of any official statement from Mike Rogers explaining his position with respect to potentially defamatory allegations by members of his staff against Mike Masnick it seems only fair to offer an explanation for the unwashed masses of ignorant halfwits populating the Internet. After years spent closely observing the species Vitulamen Sanguinem Parasitus, more commonly known as the garden variety politician, I have become something of an expert on their highly idiosyncratic communication style.
Based on my years of study I am confident what appears at first to be an organized campaign of borderline defamatory rumor mongering is, in fact, a completely unintentional misunderstanding. This is much more common than you might suspect due to the difficulty in translating from that species’ significantly more nuanced and sophisticated communication into the crude and limited vocabulary used by us ordinary folk.
It is impossible for me to definitively identify the subtleties of Mike Rogers’ staffers, not having witnessed the exchange personally. I can, however, provide some insight about how the benign behavior of these elegant creatures is often misunderstood by ordinary people. In the spirit of furthering relations between our two species I will endeavor to do so. I will also attempt to replicate the delicate nuance of their language in the hope increased exposure to it will increase your understanding.
Let’s start with the alleged comments by Representative Rogers’ staffers to a Michigan reporter insinuating, but likely falling just short of actually accusing, Mike Masnick of defamation. There are many ways to characterize his staffers’ actions. In some places it would be called innuendo, half truth, or perhaps even lying. A blogger with a legal background and significant experience in First Amendment defense, Ken White at Popehat for example, might refer to it as censorious thuggery. Such a person might even go so far to call it douchebaggery. On this very thread it has been described as corruption.
On Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday.
If you go back to the original Techdirt pieces which led to this reaction you will notice a similar communications gap. On July 26 Mike characterized Mike Rogers’ selective and out of context quotes about Supreme Court precedents misleading.
On Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday.
A day earlier Mike called out Representative Rogers for conflating different NSA programs to paint a rosy picture which is entirely and categorically false.
Once again, on Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday. I could go on but in every case the comparison would ultimately be the same.
You might agree with me that Mike Rogers, purely for personal gain, blindly supports government programs which are clearly and blatantly unconstitutional. Like me you might suggest Mike Rogers is a typical crony capitalist, irreversibly corrupted by the lure of power, prestige, and a likely future of wealth and comfort lobbying for the equally corrupt corporations he has thrown his support behind. In fact you may believe, as I do, that his public statements alone easily meet the Constitutional criteria for impeachment and his protestations to the contrary amount to nothing more than a claim of first degree butthurt.
Try to remember, though, that he truly does not understand any of that. In Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood it’s just Tuesday.
Re: I'm so smart I posted this on the wrong discussion the first time...
Perfect assessment.
Rep. Mike Rogers is corrupt. There’s no doubt about it in my mind. But, he’s not unique in that. He’s just one in a LONG LINE of folks in Washington who are also corrupt.
Yea!
You tell them Steve Dave!!
Is having his staffers say
“he could sue for defamation” enough for a going after declaratory judgement? I would guess not; but if Rogers ever utters those words, it may be game time Mike.
I’ve always viewed you as being mot quite libretarian myself
“but that they felt I was ‘an extreme liberal'”
Couldn’t you sue them for defamation?
Reporter ID
Was it with the Detroit News (editorial staff leans conservative, overall business focus), the Detroit Free Press (good investigators, WAY over the edge liberal editorial page), any of the MLive papers or possibly the Oakland Press? FWIW, hope it was one of the Free Press investigators. They do a decent job of keeping bias at bay, especially when documenting corruption. Heaven knows working at covering Detroit, they’ve got experience…
Mike Rogers is my former congressman; I left his district in 2003. I was less than pleased with my current rep’s vote on NSA (MI07, Walberg), and can only hope that Justin Amash decides to run for the DC Senate. Gary Peters is a putz.
I’ll keep a sharp eye out for any report. On the bright side, Thomas Cooley Law students (Lansing, MI) got slapped down by the court today. They sued Cooley, wanting a refund for their legal degrees that haven’t resulted in jobs.
It's all too easy
I love it when idiots threaten lawsuits, especially when the person who they believe can sue is a public official.
All one has to do to get these people to shut up is to ask the Congressional Records Office for particular logs of particular statements that the Representative made on the House floor during any debate on any subject, and that’s the end of that lawsuit:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/abt.cong.rec.html
Yeah, it’s a stupid, idle threat. Won’t hold up in any court, because it’s a public record.
I think you should issue him a public and personal challenge , a no holds barred discussion on his political stances or you can just toss on the boxing gloves and settle it .. i’m sure everyone here would enjoy either approach. ( I think you can take him)
Prism!
Excellent use of the word, “prism.”
Well done sir.
I read this and now my pants fit funny.
Cite the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.....
The response in the case of “Arkell v. Pressdam” (1971) would fit nicely. Arkell was foolish enough to sue the magazine “Private Eye”, which responded in part:
“[T]he nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.”
Yikes. I wouldn’t put much thought into it. They’re just trying to sound scary. Hold tight.
mike rogers another homosexual pedophile in congress. thanks Georgia
Mike Rogers is the mouthpiece of the intelligence community as Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf was to the Iraqi government. Outrageous bluster even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary.
How Mike Rogers got elected
Take a look at how he got to Washington in the first place. He changed Michigan voting laws right before his first election so your voter reg immediately reverted to the address on your ID, preventing 1000’s of college students from voting. He won his seat by ~100 votes.