Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government The Courts United States News

Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer From the RIAA 587

risingfish writes "Looks like Obama did what many organizations have asked him not to do. In a disappointing move, he has tapped a fifth RIAA lawyer to a top spot in the Justice Department."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Taps a 5th Lawyer From the RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • new tag (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:40PM (#27573423)
    !surprised
  • by EveryNickIsTaken ( 1054794 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:46PM (#27573565)
    This guy is more than qualified. Here's a snip from his bio:

    Before coming to Jenner & Block in 1997, Mr. Gershengorn served for two years in the U.S. Department of Justice, first as Special Assistant and Counsel to Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, and then as Assistant to Attorney General Janet Reno. At the Justice Department, Mr. Gershengorn worked on a variety of civil and civil rights matters, and also coordinated the Department's responses to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, and other organizations on rules-related issues.

    Full "bio" listing is here [jenner.com].

    Big name firms took the RIAA/MPAA cases, so it's not surprising that many of these top lawyers are getting positions in the Justice Dept. While I'm completely against the RIAA/MPAA tactics, how many lawyers would turn down the payday they were throwing their way?

  • This is what I keep telling everyone. If you think one party is perfect, and the other is evil, then you are naive. Everyone in Washington is looking out for their own interests, and a good chunk of them are corrupt along both party lines.

    Obama appointees who had to resign, the list so far:

          * Bill Richardson: grand jury investigation for influence peddling
          * Tom Daschle: tax evasion
          * Nancy Killefer: tax lien on home for failing to pay unemployment tax for household workers
          * Judd Gregg: political differences over stimulus plan
          * Annette Nazareth: reason unspecified
          * Caroline Atkinson: reason for withdrawal not specified
          * Sanjay Gupta: reason unspecified

    People who haven't withdrawn, but have had major issues:

          * Hilda Solis: husband has 16 years of tax liens against his business
          * Tim Geithner: tax problems
          * Gary Locke: potentially-suspicious fund-raising history [michellemalkin.com]
          * Ron Kirk: failed to pay $10,000 in back taxes
          * Hillary Clinton: Whitewater (which apparently she is above the law on).

    Will Vivek Kundra be next on the list? Kundra's company was just raided by the FBI.

    Add to that how Obama promised to be transparent, but has yet to do so, how he is covering up Bush's email scandal, and Obama actually INCREASING the domestic spy program, and you see that so far Obama isn't much better than Bush.

  • by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @01:55PM (#27573775)

    OJ was able to get off because he hired an incredibly talented set of lawyers.

    It makes sense that those with a lot of money would hire the best lawyers. Now that Obama chooses the cream of the crop, suddenly these guys are somehow no good?

    How naive you are:
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html [cnet.com]
    http://www.osnews.com/story/21190/Obama_s_DOJ_Sides_with_RIAA [osnews.com]

    It's cute defending your man to the last. I still have my Ron Paul sticker proudly displayed and can proudly say I did not vote one democrat or republican the last election. Yeah, my candidates lost, but at least I didn't buy into bullshit. Like George Carlin says, the people who run this country just don't give a fuck about you.

  • by TechWrite ( 1172477 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @03:24PM (#27575291)

    Right, Bush is one of those slick greasy MBA types. Completely different I'm sure...

  • I'm not defending Republicans. I'm saying you can't assume one party is evil and one party is perfect. You're missing my message completely.

    And for the record, for the past two years, Democrats have controlled the House, Senate, and most of the Governor seats, and I have always maintained that most of the power is in Capitol Hill. Yet most people I talk to insist Republicans were controlling the government, and should be blamed for all the problems of the past two years.

    Both parties voted for the Patriot Act, and continue to vote to renew and extend it. Both parties voted to go to war. Both parties voted for domestic spy programs. Both parties voted for corporate welfare.

    It is true that on some of these votes, Democrats have statistically had better voting records that Republicans. And I do praise them for that. But when Dems control both the House and Senate, we shouldn't see domestic spy packages get passed.

    Americans need to educate themselves.

  • by phoenix321 ( 734987 ) * on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @04:11PM (#27576093)

    If you've read both linked Wikipedia entries, you would have noticed a stark contrast in the first paragraph:

    "George W. Bush used this power only to eliminate the collateral effects of conviction (e.g., prohibitions on felons voting or owning a gun). He did NOT pardon anyone who had NOT SERVED A FULL SENTENCE pursuant to a conviction."

    (emphasis mine)

    I didn't like George W. OR Billy Cigar Clinton more than anyone else, but on the singular issue of pardoning criminals as presented in really really well cited Wikipedia entries, Clinton and you are dead wrong.

    Just look at the conviction dates of people pardoned by Bush, he pardoned seasoned, tough criminals who accepted a bribe of 50 Dollars or made Moonshine, both back in the Sixties, come on.

  • by Shagg ( 99693 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @04:19PM (#27576289)

    it is the people who are being sued by the RIAA/MPAA that are doing questionably legal things.

    You've got to be kidding.

    it's been made pretty clear that if you get caught downloading

    Nobody has been sued for downloading.

    you can and most likely will get sued. (and lose.)

    The RIAA has not won a single one of these cases.

    And, as far as I've read, the laws and precedents support this.

    Apparently you have not read very far (or at all).

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...