Ajit Pai Gives Carriers Free Pass on Privacy Violations During FCC Shutdown (arstechnica.com) 169
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai refused to brief a Congressional committee Monday about mobile carriers' ability to share their subscribers' location data with third parties. From a report: House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) asked Pai for an "emergency briefing" to explain why the FCC "has yet to end wireless carriers' unauthorized disclosure of consumers' real-time location data," and for an update on "what actions the FCC has taken to address this issue to date." Pai's FCC could take action, despite the 2017 repeal of the commission's broadband privacy rules. Phone carriers are legally required to protect "Customer Proprietary Network Information [CPNI]," and the FCC's definition of CPNI includes location data.
[...] Pai did not agree with Pallone, it turns out. "Today, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai refused to brief Energy and Commerce Committee staff on the real-time tracking of cell phone location[s]," Pallone said in a statement yesterday. "In a phone conversation today, his staff asserted that these egregious actions are not a threat to the safety of human life or property that the FCC will address during the Trump shutdown."
[...] Pai did not agree with Pallone, it turns out. "Today, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai refused to brief Energy and Commerce Committee staff on the real-time tracking of cell phone location[s]," Pallone said in a statement yesterday. "In a phone conversation today, his staff asserted that these egregious actions are not a threat to the safety of human life or property that the FCC will address during the Trump shutdown."
How is this false? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the carriers are doing is horrible, no doubt. They should be stopped from selling location data to anyone, full stop.
But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.
If you are really really keen on this moving forward, add to the support to fund the wall already authorized by previous government bills, and move on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.
It very well could be a threat to life. A cost of $300 is small change for a stalker or killer to track someone.
Re:How is this false? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, perhaps it would be more apparent if someone were to track Mr. Pai's phone, and map it, and ask him if he felt threatened by it's disclosure of his travel patterns, or if the location of his whereabouts might indicate when his vehicle or home is empty for his property to be accessed by others who don't belong there.
I can't help but think lobbyists or ordinary citizens might be interested in knowing whether he really IS busy in meetings elsewhere or if his staff is really just blowing people off. Because I'd love to be able to bump into him in a grocery store to share our respective points of view on various items before the commission.
I'm also thinking of those people who have had their investment portfolios cleaned out as they were on a long flight and inaccessible to see the accounts being drained.
Am I wrong in seeing a threat to high value targets in gaining executives' locations to those who want to kidnap them?
Anyone? Anyone?
Re:How is this false? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are really really keen on this moving forward, add to the support to fund the wall already authorized by previous government bills, and move on.
Screw that. Pass a bill to restart the government, then debate the wall like adults. Holding the government hostage is not acceptable.
Plus... why wasn't this $5b funded when Republicans held both houses? Presumably, they could have worked with Trump earlier. They funded the DoD and a few other agencies through Oct 1 (start of the government's next fiscal year).
Stupid manufactured crisis.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, We didn't.
Put the blame where it belongs: The greedy assholes and powermongers in Washington.
They've done and continue to do every thing they can to to keep an ever tightening grip on their power.
Funneling money to political parties? Check.
Delegitimizing political opinions of the constituency? Check.
Delegitimizing the media? Check.
Election fraud? Check.
Corrupting the judicial system? Check.
Diluting the power of the voters? Check.
Revoking voting rights of individual groups? Check.
Limiting access to the p
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
why wasn't this $5b funded when Republicans held both houses?
The Republican House did pass the funding in December but there were not enough Democrat senators to support it and it died.
The lack of democratic senators is the same reason why it didn't happen earlier. You can't do much in the senate with a simple majority.
Re: (Score:3)
In the past when this happened the senators would come to a compromise, like rational adults. Compromise is good, it prevents big radical ideas from being implemented just because of a small majority. It maintains stability. But today compromise has become a bad word. The true believer partisans will curse and scream when the opposite side takes any action unilaterally but when their side is in power they demand fast action without any consultation with the opponents.
In the grand experiment of American de
Umm, actually it does... 60 votes required. (Score:3)
Are you trying to claim that a funding bill requires a supermajority in the Senate? That would be news to - well, just about everyone.
No, it would be the facts [usatoday.com].
The whole reason the original House bill could not be passed was that it required 60 votes.
Re:How is this false? (Score:5, Insightful)
trump rejected the *REPUBLICAN* budget bills late last year (ya know, when he had the fucking majority in both houses), ones that did include *some* 'wall' funding.
now he and mcconnell (who is doing trump's dirty work, not even letting a bill get a fucking vote to pass; which would force trump to veto.. which would cause a shitstorm, even among his sheeple), and their russian puppetmaster, are holding the entire country hostage for the 'full' amount (and it's not even the 'full' amount, but rather what some estimate would be barely five percent of the final cost after it's all built.. and most of which would end up in republican "donor" pockets). never mind the fact the fucking wall should be debated and funded independently of any other appropriations and legislation, which is what the sane members of congress want.
we do not negotiate with terrorists. trump is owned by russia. he is an enemy asset. HE IS A FUCKING TERRORIST. his allies in the senate are co-conspirators. DO NOT GIVE IN. EVER.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Russia was fighting the terrorists. Hey propagandist when ever you mod up anonymous you waste your mod, if you work for the government that post is an electoral crime, so be very, very careful. Do not make political posts or mods on the government dime, that is a criminal act, electoral fraud, don't you know. Governments are not allowed to use tax payer funds for electioneering purposes either for or against.
Besides seppos rolled over decades ago and the 1% have been screwing them over ever since
Re:How is this false? (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.
No arguments here. This totally can wait till the government is reopened.
If you are really really keen on this moving forward, add to the support to fund the wall already
No. That just sets a new standard that if the President refuses to sign a CR then eventually they will get their way. If we were literally talking about any other piece of legislation outside of a CR, maybe. But refusing to sign a CR (or in the Congressional sense vote for a CR) makes a person(s) look like an asshat. That applies to anyone and everyone regardless of political party.
authorized by previous government bills
Which if you might remember Trump was going to veto. First President I've known of who had exactly what they wanted and then threaten to veto it. Nah, he got his chance in March when the first pieces of his wall were addressed in the 2018 Omnibus spending. He shot it down, at this point he can kick rocks. The President wanted his cake and to eat it as well. I'll continue sending care packages to the local TSA agents and helping out friends who are furloughed till the 2020 election if need be. The President blew his one chance, he ought not get another. If you get three inches in anything government, you take that small bit and roll with it. The President looked at that small concession, wasn't happy it wasn't a "BIG WIN", and decided he'd pass and wait for something better. Doing that in anything government is call being a greedy fool.
Re: (Score:2)
No. That just sets a new standard that if the President refuses to sign a CR then eventually they will get their way.
Perhaps you are too young to remember that the government budget isn't supposed to be a string of "continuing resolutions", but instead a real budget with real plans and real numbers.
And maybe we should remember that "failing to sign a bill" is called a "pocket veto", and Congress can overturn a veto if they have enough votes.
If Congress has the will, they could end this. Not today, but they have the power.
Which if you might remember Trump was going to veto. First President I've known of who had exactly what they wanted and then threaten to veto it.
As if every bill passed by Congress contained only one thing and dealt with only one issue. It is
Re:How is this false? (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps you are too young to remember that the government budget isn't supposed to be a string of "continuing resolutions"
Well into my fifties actually. As someone already pointed out, been a hot minute since we've had a comprehensive budget lock, stock, and barrel. But you're confusing the point I'm making about a CR. If you cannot at the very least sign a CR, then screw you. Yes, make a budget, make it balanced too, but should all else fail, at least agree that status quo is good enough until a compromise can be had. Not even agreeing to that is a pretty shitty attitude to have.
Congress can overturn a veto if they have enough votes
And that is what some are banking on, but at the moment the Senate Majority leader is preventing anything that will be vetoed from being brought to the floor. That's called favoring party over country, because it is very clear that a Republican held Senate overriding their own President would been seen as an indication that the Republican platform is not united behind their standard barer. If you're attempting to do "the right thing" (and of course that's objective, hence quotes), you tend to ignore how something will look party-wise and just go ahead and do it. Typically, the party can play an override without too many ramifications, but the current President has played the RINO card a lot. Additionally, those who shunned him and lost their bid, the President has made too much of a big deal about that. So the President has, by his own hand, amped the loyalty aspect way too much. So no matter how you slice it, with how it is within the Republican party at the moment, any override by the Senate would be seen as a fracture in the Republican platform and that would make a handy plank in the Democrats platform. Whatever the "right thing" is defined as aside, the Senate overriding the President at this point would create a schism between hard-core Trump supporters and traditional Republicans.
If Congress has the will, they could end this
I feel there is enough moderate Republicans that if they wanted to they would but I'm sure the Whip is keeping folks toeing the line. If there is no break in the Democrat stance, it will only be when enough hurt befalls the moderate Republicans to out power the Whips influence, will there be any breakthrough.
It is quite common, in fact a standard practice these days, for Congress to put multiple things in a single bill
Yeah, that's what a comprehensive budget is for.
some of which they want but the President doesn't
Yeah, because we don't live in a Monarchy. No single person gets what they want, it's kind of a collective, you get yours and I get mine kind of deal.
expecting the President to sign the whole thing so he gets the things he wants
Yeah that's called compromise. The President get's the start of his wall. The Democrats would have gotten what they needed for DACA.
You must be very young indeed not to have seen this before Trump
You are assuming a whole lot.
The standard response is then to claim the President vetoed the bill because of something he himself wanted, when the truth is he vetoed it because of all the extra crap that Congress stuffed into it
Well typically, what happens is the President indicates to his party within Congress what line items they would like to see changed. A whole lot of debating goes on and eventually line items before it even gets out of committee are changed etc. If a President vetos a budget because of some random line item, then the President has been asleep at the wheel here. There are several points during the process for the President to speak up and have his/her party object, table motion, refer to committee, filibuster, etc, etc, etc... any particular line item. That's why Congress ki
Re: (Score:2)
If you cannot at the very least sign a CR, then screw you.
So then you think the Congress can put whatever they want into, and leave out things that they've already approved, for a CR and the President is just supposed to rubber stamp it? Is that what you think the President's authority is limited to? Shame shame.
It is quite common, in fact a standard practice these days, for Congress to put multiple things in a single bill
Yeah, that's what a comprehensive budget is for.
Nice way to pull a quote out of context to help your straw man. That quote was referring NOT to a "comprehensive budget", but to the common practice of Congress stuffing lots of unrelated things into a normal bill, hiding behind something the President has
Re: (Score:2)
So then you think the Congress can put whatever they want into, and leave out things that they've already approved, for a CR
One, name a CR where that has been done, because most CR written this side of the aughties and the decade before hand have been "status quo" resolutions with minor tweaks to reach majority. Two, you're correct in that nothing legally prevents them from doing what you've said, but that is not the CR in question that was tabled by the Senate recently. Three, even if they did do that, that's the House's prerogative. They hold the purse of the nation per Article one. While I'm not advocating rubber stamps f
Re:How is this false? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Congress has the will, they could end this.
And don't forget that if the president has the will, he could end this too. When there is an impasse the fault never lies solely with one side.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The President looked at that small concession, wasn't happy it wasn't a "BIG WIN", and decided he'd pass and wait for something better.
I think it's even simpler than that.
The Democrats won the house. So, Trump shut down the government.
Another Theory (Score:1)
Perhaps Trump actually wants to shut down the U.S. Federal government. The wall is simply an excuse. If the government is shut down, perhaps the Muller probe will run out of funds.
Instead of playing his game, it is time for democrats and republicans from both the house and senate to strongly consider the 25th amendment.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Re: (Score:2)
Get real. Congress needs to just pass a budget and then force trump to sign it with however many votes it needs to be. At this point, this is Majority Leaders fault for not bringing a bill up for a vote.
If he would hold a vote, Trump can veto it. Then everyone needs to vote on it again and it won't matter what Trump says.
If Congress can't get that done, what makes you possibly think they will invoke the 25th?
To be on topic, this issue can actually wait for the government to reopen, but it definitely should
Merely stating the ground truth here (Score:2)
No. That just sets a new standard that if the President refuses to sign a CR then eventually they will get their way.
Note that I did not say "pass the wall" from the standpoint of saying if that is good or bad.
I said that from the standpoint of tactics only - Trump is not going to back down, and is actually helped [dailymail.co.uk] the longer the shutdown goes on.
So the only way to move forward is to fund the wall to some degree (Trump would be willing to bargain downward somewhat).
How does the sound of the government being
Re: (Score:3)
Note that I did not say "pass the wall" from the standpoint of saying if that is good or bad
Sorry if it came off that way, neither am I pointing to some moral dilemma that steams from the wall. I'm just saying however that if Congress does cave in to the $5.7B figure, that emboldens the administration and does set a new bar for brinkmanship in government shutdowns. It will indicate that 26-days (or how ever long this shutdown does go on for) is a fine time frame for a shutdown. Congress has every motive to ensure that long shutdowns equate to diminished returns on demands. If they do not covey
Re: (Score:2)
[Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty, Fox and Friends, etc.] looked at that small concession, [weren't] happy it wasn't a "BIG WIN", and [Trump] decided he'd pass and wait for something better.
Sorry had to fix that for you. ;-)
The president was fine with the previous Republican bill until his friends at Fox News told him it was a bad deal. Why should he listen to the public or his advisors when he can just turn to Fox News to see what he should do?
Re: (Score:2)
But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.
Given the insane numbers of restraining orders issued in this country and the thousand women actually killed each year by their husbands alone it is easy to draw the opposite conclusion.
Where is my sandwich? Where did that bitch run off to? I swear I'm going to cut her.
(Gets location data from shady broker)
Oh she's at her sisters.
News at 10: Two sisters killed by deranged husband.
Re: (Score:1)
What the carriers are doing is horrible, no doubt. They should be stopped from selling location data to anyone, full stop.
I think it is kinda rare when we agree, but this. They should be stopped. But the summary is blaming Pai for not ending unauthorized sales. The FCC cannot end the sales. They can make them unauthorized (illegal), and then they can levy fines. That's all. They can't shoot the people who are about to hand over the data. If they are already unauthorized, then the rules already exist. Now they need STAFF to start the NAL (notice of apparent liability) process.
It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.
Pai is pointing out, in a very direct manner, that a
Re: (Score:1)
Or, the USA could save a billion or two and PAY Mexico to build the wall...
Re: (Score:1)
It has happened already.
Links please? (Score:2)
I'm not saying it's not impossible, but for that kind of accusation you need to provide some proof - I have not read of anything like that happening.
The location data is not as easy to got, nor as accurate [zdnet.com] as you and many other seem to think - and here they are saying most people would be asked via text if it was OK to hand out location data.
Again, I still don't think carriers should even be allowed to sell this data. Wouldn't that then make the perfect case to pass an actual LAW banning it - you know, the
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a source for this? I have not heard of such a thing.
Re:Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit C (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that this can't happen, it's just a lot less likely. If we're interested in preventing spousal murders (or just violence in general) there are plenty of other things that we should be far more worried about. The sad thing is that something like this would get sensationalized and focus and effort that could be better spent elsewhere for better overall outcomes will instead be pointlessly squandered.
Re: (Score:2)
People who kill other people tend to be more impulsive than they are intelligent. The number of people who are aware that they can access this data, intelligent enough to be able to gather and put it to use, but also willing to kill someone is incredibly small.
Stalker apps to spy on significant others have been installed on MILLIONS of devices. The universe of deranged control freaks and jealous spouses are well aware of what's available to them.
It's normal people who lack this knowledge and think you need to have a functioning brain to use tools like this that are the problem.
It's not that this can't happen, it's just a lot less likely. If we're interested in preventing spousal murders (or just violence in general) there are plenty of other things that we should be far more worried about.
What else should the FCC be far more worried about in this area? Spectrum policy? Decency standards?
The sad thing is that something like this would get sensationalized and focus and effort that could be better spent elsewhere for better overall outcomes will instead be pointlessly squandered.
FFS what effort? How much does it cost to levy fines against companies for breaking e
Ever heard of the Unibomber? (Score:2)
The point is Pai is delaying action on this hoping it'll blow over and the ISPs can keep right on doing it. Again, he's sided with them on absolutely everything. Even the rural expansions are something they want since they're financed by fees paid by city subscribers and are basically free money for the ISPs & telcos.
Odds are Pai
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Day one, they passed a set of micro-budgets. 7 of them. So the Senate could start turning on some parts of the federal government while still letting a shutdown affect one department (for face saving). The Senate never voted on them.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course that's how it works. 80% of the US government isn't shut down. The military, HHS, VA, Education Department, etc. are all full funded. So is the USPS, Social Security and Medicare (although that's because of alternate funding.)
There's no "pass a budget" item. It's a "fund X bill". Sometimes X is the whole governments. Sometimes, it's a special allotment to establish a specific bridge or project.
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Note, though, that budget bills originate in the House, and Pelosi has not allowed a vote on a FY2019 budget. This is Pelosi's shutdown, not Trumps. He blusters, he threatens, whatever. Pelosi has the first move and she's stonewalling.
Incorrect, Anonymous Coward.
The House has passed numerous budgets. The Speaker of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, refuses to take any of them to the floor of the senate.
McConnell has the next move and he's stonewalling.
Re: (Score:2)
The House has passed numerous budgets. The Speaker of the Senate, Mitch McConnell,
There is no "Speaker of the Senate". There is a President of the Senate, who is the Vice President of the US, Mike Pence. There is a majority leader, who is Mitch McConnell.
Re: THERE ARE ALWAYS CONSEQUENCES NAZI FAGGOT KEN (Score:1, Informative)
*smirk* No there won't. No one has seen any "consequences", and no one ever will.
What are these consequences? Are they imaginary consequences? Are they the consequences of what happens to your mind from inhaling the smoke that you constantly seem to be blowing out your ass?
Geez. Find a new unhealthy obsession and move on already. Your nazi-faggot-too-many-caps-consequences posts are ready for the nursing home.
Re: (Score:1)
Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration (Score:1, Interesting)
The entire Trump Presidency is encapsulated in this : Moron shuts down the government on a tantrum-whim, consequently his "regulators" use that excuse to not do their jobs, as he obviously picked them not to.
Get a rope.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama did an equal shutdown, when congress wasn't giving him funds for the ACA --- now the shoe just happens to be on the other foot.
That's not true. ACA had been fully funded from the start and doesn't need reauthorizations. Ted Cruz shut down the government because he wanted to force Obama to "address the deficit" (not kidding) and cancel the ACA. This is exactly what Trump is doing now.
Re:Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration (Score:5, Insightful)
And, BTW, this shutdown is the longest in history, so there's comparison with Obama or anyone else.
Trump is a spoiled brat petulant child in the White House.
People are sick and tired of politicians owned by corporations raiding the Treasury for corporate benefit... In 2018 the GOP increased the deficit by $1.06T dollars in massive corporate tax cut under the guise of "it would spur the economy"... Corporations took their new found windfall and used it on record setting stock buy backs... a $1T dollars worth (seen that number before?)
We have the GOP who continually scream about the deficit when there's a Democrat in charge, instantly toll armloads of payola on corporate oligarchy as soon as they get the chance.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Budgets in the senate require 60 votes. They needed democrat support then just as they need it now.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. 2 months ago the GOP had the House , Senate and Oval Office - yet couldn't get a budget done.
The democrats obstructed using the senate. Part of the problem is over the past two years, even when the
republicans had a majority in the Senate they have been "playing nice" --- As in, they've held to old traditions and didn't change the rules of the Senate to
prevent the minority party from using filibusters to obstruct business.
Although the dems have been the ones to push the line and next t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, its mostly the Democrats' fault. Every member of congress has a part in it ---
personally, I think to dissuade this behavior, the law ought to be written so that in the event of a funding deficiency -
current congress members' pay and funding of their future benefits will be the very first things that become unfunded:
following that, all congressional office funding and allowances will be suspended - further office supply expenses will be paid for out of pocket with no reimbursement, next suspen
Re: (Score:1)
NORAD has their Santa Tracker. Maybe there should be an official Pai Tracker that would empower the citizens to express their measured and careful opinions on the issues to Pai personally.
America is dead (Score:3, Insightful)
It was a nice run but it's time to admit the experiment our founders put in motion all those years ago has failed. Undone by ignorance, complacency, and unfettered capitalism.
It was nice while it lasted. It's all over but the shouting now.
Re: (Score:1)
I honestly wish I could disagree to this, but I don't see any evidence he's wrong. And I've been looking hard for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up you fucking Russian. Once this country implodes into civil war, the money for your job dries up too. Consider that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. They pay me in rubles.
I need to learn how to negotiate, I'm just getting paid in signed pictures of shirtless Putin wrestling bears!
This is BAU for Pai (Score:4, Insightful)
We all know this by now. The question I keep asking is, is this going to change how anybody votes in 2020? So far I haven't got a single answer of "yes". As such, I would expect him to continue this behavior since it seems to be working out just fine for him.
you mean "illegally make his staff work unpaid" (Score:1)
And by you mean "he's not going to unlawfully force his staff to do unpaid work in order to make Congress happy while Congress fails to do their job and pay the staff".
The House wants the FCC employees to come to work and create a report for them about this. The House hasn't passed a spending bill authorizing that the employees get paid. I very well might not keep showing up to work weeks after I was no longer getting paid. (Unless I owned the company - I've done that).
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/h... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:you mean "illegally make his staff work unpaid" (Score:4, Interesting)
The house did pass a bill. It was never taken up for a vote with the senate. As far as the emergency nature of this, it does seem like this has immediate life threatening implications as the Streisand effect of this capability will likely lead to an ex boyfriend/girlfriend/whomever finding where someone is hiding and assaulting them.
Everyone time someone says that the meta data the government collects isn’t that important or, in this case, that allowing anyone to get real time location info on anyone else in the nation isn’t that important, I wish they would give me carte blanche to prove to them that it is not the case. Ajit had to hire a bunch of security guards because nobody likes him (outside of corporate board rooms). I would love to show him how dangerous this info is. But of course, doing something like that is illegal and I would get prosecuted for it without it actually fixing anything. I wish he’d just put his money where his mouth is and let someone prove him wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Pai should have said "I can't respond to your enquiries because I am not being paid." Or did he somehow get classified as an essential worker who's allowed to go politicking?
That's what he said, but staff (Score:3)
That's essentially what he said. By law, the unfunded agencies, including the FCC, can only have staff do things for which waiting until next week would be "a threat to the safety of human life or property". Preparing a report for this Congresscritter is "not a threat to the safety of human life or property", he said, and therefore he can't legally have staff doing that when Congress hasn't authorized paying any staff.
Re: (Score:1)
How Do I Moderate (Score:2)
an entire post as "Troll"?
Get the paychecks flowing (Score:1)
Congress should be doing one thing, and one thing only: working to end the shutdown. Those 800,000 employees need their paychecks to live their lives. Even if Congress wants to keep a "stop work" in place to show the President who's boss, the employees should not suffer.
Imagine if GM or Walmart decided not to pay their employees because the CEO & BOD were having a spat.
It's an utter embarrassment that the federal government isn't paying its employees.
Where's irony when you need it? (Score:1)
I have to admit, if somebody jumped through the financial hoops, got Pai's location and murdered him, I wouldn't be terribly upset. In fact, I'd probably have a good laugh and a fun beer discussion with friends about whether such an event would actually constitute irony, or merely incongruous coincidence.
You could just jail Pai (Score:3)
Refusing to respond means they can send the Capitol police to arrest him, and drag him to the hearing.
Just do it.
If he refuses to speak,, lock him up until he does.
It's within the power of Congress.
Color me surprised (Score:3)
Whore lets John get his way while the cops are in the donut shop.
Where's the news?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Us? Obama bailed out big business and banks. I never got a check, matter of fact, my taxes went up because I was poor, now Trump makes my taxes go down.
Re: (Score:1)
Your taxes have only gone down temporarily if you're poor. They'll go up to close the budget gap created by corporate tax cuts. It's disturbing how corrupt so many Americans are. They can easily be bought. The Soviets were right when they said Americans would sell you the rope to hang them with.
Too bad you can't stay on topic (Score:1)
Cheap Mexican labor is fucking carrying our economy you stupid shill.
Re: (Score:1)
Cheap Mexican labor is fucking carrying our economy you stupid shill.
If true, why do you support such economic slavery? Would it not be better to reveal real costs of doing things rather than by exploiting poor Mexicans?
I guess you just prefer to see them suffer. Sad.
Re: (Score:1)
Or maybe business owners could exercise some of that "personal responsibility" and only hire legal workers instead of wasting taxes on a useless wall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Found the treasonous Republican faggot of no value or consequence!
Logic: Its treason to want to stop the exploitation of desperate minorities by rich liberals in California.