DOWNLOADS: (741)

PLAYS: (13075)

Embed

Anyone who is a regular reader of this site is probably already familiar with Donald Trump's threat to sue Bill Maher over his joke where he asked flame thrower and birther for proof that he was not the result of his mother having sex with an orangutan. Well, now that Trump followed through on his threat, Maher responded during his New Rules segment on HBO this Friday evening, and let's just say, the results weren't pretty for Trump.

Maher took Trump apart and opened up the segment with this:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (565)

PLAYS: (9504)

Embed

We've covered both of these stories here, whether it's the "too big to jail" corrupt HSBC, or the out of touch greedy AIG, which was considering suing the taxpayers after they'd bailed them out. This Wednesday evening, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart took his turn going after them.

AIG decided not to join their former CEO "Hank" Greenberg's lawsuit against the government after all. I guess they took a look at those booming sales of pitchforks and torches and decided it might not bode well for them to do so.

DOWNLOADS: (173)

PLAYS: (1201)

Embed

This story is just disgusting. There ought to be criminal charges against this contractor for doing this, instead of them trying to dump their liabilities onto the taxpayers: KBR, Guilty In Iraq Negligence, Wants Taxpayers To Foot The Bill:

Sodium dichromate is an orange-yellowish substance containing hexavalent chromium, an anti-corrosion chemical. To Lt. Col. James Gentry of the Indiana National Guard, who was stationed at the Qarmat Ali water treatment center in Iraq just after the 2003 U.S. invasion, it was “just different-colored sand.” In their first few months at the base, soldiers were told by KBR contractors running the facility the substance was no worse than a mild irritant.

Gentry was one of approximately 830 service members, including active-duty soldiers and members of the National Guard and reserve units from Indiana, South Carolina, West Virginia and Oregon, assigned to secure the water treatment plant, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Sodium dichromate is not a mild irritant. It is an extreme carcinogen. In November 2009, at age 52, Gentry died of cancer. The VA affirmed two months later that his death was service-related.

In November, a jury found KBR, the military's largest contractor, guilty of negligence in the poisoning of a dozen soldiers, and ordered the company to pay $85 million in damages. Jurors found KBR knew both of the presence and toxicity of the chemical. Other lawsuits against KBR are pending.

KBR, however, says taxpayers should be on the hook for the verdict, as well as more than $15 million the company has spent in its failed legal defense, according to court documents and attorneys involved with the case.

KBR's contract with the U.S. to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure after the 2003 invasion includes an indemnity agreement protecting the company from legal liability, KBR claims in court filings. That agreement, KBR insists, means the federal government must pay the company's legal expenses plus the verdict won by 12 members of the Oregon National Guard who were exposed to the toxin at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant.

The military disagrees. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contracting officer told KBR in November 2011 that litigation costs "are not covered by the indemnity agreement."

The public doesn’t know what the indemnity agreement actually says because the military considers it classified. Until recently, the veterans exposed to the toxin couldn’t know either, nor could attorneys at the Department of Justice, who were left battling the contract in the dark, according to a source there.

Michael Doyle, a Houston-based lawyer who helped the successful suit against KBR, told The Huffington Post the military declassified the indemnification agreement on Dec. 21 and gave it to him under a protective order that banned him from sharing the language to parties not involved in the case. John A. Elolf, a spokesman for KBR, confirmed the declassification of the agreement and said the contractor also was prevented from providing a copy. HuffPost has requested the document under the Freedom of Information Act from the Corps of Engineers. Read on...

DOWNLOADS: (878)

PLAYS: (3799)

Embed

Rick Sanchez states the truth on CNN about just how bad ClusterFox is with getting a move up to the front row in the briefing room for the White House press corps. They didn't get Helen Thomas' seat, the AP did, but they still got a seat in the front row. Much to the horror of his cohorts Ed Henry who voted to allow Fox to move up and Brook Baldwin, Rick Sanchez does something I'll bet he's backpedaling on later, he tells the truth that Fox is not a news organization.

I read something a while back where Fox won a law suit and if memory serves it was from Canada and they won it because they said they were an "entertainment" network and not news. I keep wondering how they can keep the word "news" as part of their marketing after that happened but haven't had the time to look into it. Maybe some of our readers here can fill me in if they've followed it.

Anyway, here's the transcript of Sanchez's slam and Ed Henry's lame excuse for pretending like any of their so called "straight reporters" deserve their colleagues giving them a move up with their seating arrangements. To be honest the whole thing looks like a game of who's the most popular in high school to me in the first place. Where Helen was seated didn't matter a whole hell of a lot when the Bush administration refused to call on her for years. I would imagine it's not going to matter any more with Gibbs or whoever takes his place either.

The Villagers do love their popularity contests though, don't they?

Transcript via CNN below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (620)

PLAYS: (447)

Embed

Even though I still agree that those who have been damaged by the oil spill in the Gulf getting something from BP right now is better than what we saw happen after the Exxon Valdez disaster -- where those who had claims got stalled for years and our wonderful corporatist Supreme Court decided that if they weren't dead yet ages later they were going to get next to nothing for their suffering -- it looks like Kenneth Feinberg is going back on the Obama administration's promise that taking money from BP now will not prevent anyone who has been damaged and who takes money from the escrow fund now from having the right to sue BP later.

Here's a portion of a press release from the Obama administration on June 16th of this year.

This $20 billion will provide substantial assurance that the claims people and businesses have will be honored. It’s also important to emphasize this is not a cap. The people of the Gulf have my commitment that BP will meet its obligations to them. BP has publicly pledged to make good on the claims that it owes to the people in the Gulf, and so the agreement we reached sets up a financial and legal framework to do it.

Another important element is that this $20 billion fund will not be controlled by either BP or by the government. It will be put in a escrow account, administered by an impartial, independent third party. So if you or your business has suffered an economic loss as a result of this spill, you’ll be eligible to file a claim for part of this $20 billion. This fund does not supersede either individuals’ rights or states’ rights to present claims in court. BP will also continue to be liable for the environmental disaster it has caused, and we’re going to continue to work to make sure that they address it.

Kenneth Feinberg directly contradicted that statement during his meeting with Louisiana residents on July 15th.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (529)

PLAYS: (708)

Embed

Another Sunday and another chance for Bill Kristol to prove he's wrong about everything. Apparently Bloody Bill thinks using the Justice Department and our court system for the Obama administration to sue the state of Arizona over their immigration law somehow shows a "disrespect for democracy". I guess Bill doesn't have much use for that third branch of our government if he thinks using the courts isn't democratic.

I'm also getting sick to death of hearing about how the law polls. If we used polls to decide what was right in this country we'd still have Jim Crow laws on the books, which would probably be fine with a lot of Republicans unfortunately.

WALLACE: Bill?

KRISTOL: Yeah, and some -- and the great thing about the federal system is there are 50 states and Republicans in different states can say - - honestly take different positions. I'm not sure I would vote for this law in Virginia. We have very different circumstances than they do in Arizona.

But what strikes me about it -- I looked at the polls on this last night -- this law was always popular by about 3-2 when it was polled in May, when it first burst into the news. It's now -- its popularity has increased. That is, the popularity of the Arizona law has increased. The unpopularity of the Obama's administration's position...

WALLACE: Let me just -- let me just quickly...

KRISTOL: ... has increased.

WALLACE: ... put up on the screen -- this is a Fox News poll out this week, and what it shows is that overall -- overall, Americans approve of the Arizona law by a margin of 52 percent to 27, so basically two to one.

I will add, though, Hispanics, Bill, oppose the law overall around the country by a margin of about four to one.

KRISTOL: Right. But that 52-27 percent is interesting. It was 50 to 32 about two or three weeks before. So in other words, the number is increasing.

WALLACE: Right.

KRISTOL: And this reminds me of health care. We're having a big national debate. Voters are learning more about it. And more voters are more pro-Arizona as it goes on. That is bad for the Obama administration.

I mean, people in Washington tend to assume, "If only we could just educate them a little more and, you know -- and give some more speeches around the country, we'll their mind," and that's been very much the Obama administration's view on stimulus, on health care, and now on Arizona, on immigration. And I think it's not going to work.

And I think this is foolish of the Obama administration. I think it's bad law. And it, above all, shows a -- I think when in doubt...

WALLACE: Bad law meaning that the...

KRISTOL: Bad law -- I mean, I think it's -- I'm sorry, the bad lawsuit. Also, it just -- it shows a disrespect for democracy. When in doubt, let the voters and let the state legislatures have their way. If there's a clear abrogation of someone's individual right, of course, then the federal government can step in.

This is, at best -- at best -- a very murky case. And instead of waiting for the law to go into effect, instead of taking the attitude of let's see what happens with the private lawsuits that have been -- that have been filed, the Obama administration is stepping in and trying to override the democratically legislated laws of Arizona.

DOWNLOADS: (526)

PLAYS: (666)

Embed

Once again Bill I'm-never-right-about-anything Kristol is living in upside down land on Fox News Sunday while discussing the response to the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of acknowledging that this is a blow to the notion that private industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself, he instead claims that it's a blow to the notion "that government can do so much as -- do as much as liberals think it can do". Sorry Bill but this is what government looks like after it's wrecked by people who don't believe in governing and the free market can do anything it wants.

WALLACE: Bill?

KRISTOL: I mean, I think, actually, the conventional wisdom in Washington about this is almost entirely backwards. The conventional wisdom is this has been a great blow to President Obama. The fact is if you go to look at Rasmussen Reports poll of President Obama's approval rating, on April 21st, the day after the oil spill, he had a 47 percent approval. Today he's 46 percent. And that's true of all the polls.

The American public is more grown-up than we all are. There's this terrible oil spill. It was an accident. Maybe B.P. should have been more careful. Maybe parts of the federal government fell down on the job. That happens. President Obama is no more or less responsible than if President Bush or President McCain were in office.

And I don't think they're actually holding him personally accountable much at all. What I think this is a blow to is not him personally but to Obamaism. I mean, it's a blow to the notion that the federal government, a notion that he's deeply identified with, is sort of omnipotent and, as Mara says, they can, quote, "get on top of this." What does that mean? They can't solve this. I mean...

HUME: It's posturing.

KRISTOL: ... and this is why...

LIASSON: Yes, they can't solve the spill...

KRISTOL: ... and this is why the New York Times...

LIASSON: ... but they can clean up the oil.

KRISTOL: And they are going to clean up the oil. And if you listen to Thad Allen, whom I know a little bit, and whom I know people in the Bush administration know well, there's no better person you could have in charge of it.

And the idea that Thad Allen isn't doing what he could do to contain it and to -- is he making some individual mistakes, or his subordinates may be missing one or two opportunities, sure. But he's doing as good a job as the federal government's going to do.

And in that respect, I do think that the reason the left is so upset, the reason the New York Times editorial board today is all upset about this, is that it -- as they sort of say, it's a blow to the notion that government can do so much as -- do as much as liberals think it can do.

WILLIAMS: Well, I'm in an alternate universe this morning, to hear Brit Hume say that...

KRISTOL: We do our best for you, you know?

WILLIAMS: ... Brit and Bill say, "You know what? People are being unfair to the Obama administration. You know, what can a president do? He didn't create the spill." All true.

But what he can do, I think, is be very clear about who's in charge here, and not allow B.P. -- this week we learned B.P. lied to the American people and to President Obama about the extent of the spill. It's six times worse than what they initially said. I think we can understand...

HUME: Was that a lie or a failed estimate?

WILLIAMS: I think it's a lie. I don't -- I don't know if it's a failed estimate, but clearly they were aware -- they had the camera in place. They could see what was going on. They knew what the -- the extent of the damage.

The second thing to say is when it comes to saying is the Coast Guard in charge or are we simply trusting B.P., I think the administration was reluctant to say, "We're going to go down there and take charge of this situation." I think that...

HUME: Well, what are they going to take charge with?

WILLIAMS: Well, I think what they're going to do now is to say, "You know what? We're going to stay on top of B.P." And I think that's the second part of this, that people want B.P. to be held accountable. They want B.P. to be sued if necessary. They want questions about what B.P. is doing -- the administration this weekend...

KRISTOL: I don't think there's much of a problem with a lack of lawsuits against B.P.

WILLIAMS: No, they're coming.

KRISTOL: I believe there are about 10,000 already filed.

WILLIAMS: No, but the federal government, I think, should be right there on top of...

KRISTOL: That will be very helpful. The federal government can jump in with all the -- yeah, let's have more lawyers on the case. That will help clean up the oil.

DOWNLOADS: (747)

PLAYS: (1669)

Embed

Looks like Mitch McConnell is channeling his buddy Lisa Murkowski on lifting the $75 million cap on damages for the oil companies. So let's see if we can follow Mitch McConnell's logic here. He doesn't want anyone to be able to sue the oil companies for more than $75 million in damages because it might put some of the smaller oil companies out of business. I would assume lifting that cap would only put them out of business if they actually they did more than $75 million worth of damage. So I guess that means McConnell would like for small companies to be allowed to do more damage than they can afford to pay for, because putting an unsafe company that did that much damage out of business would be worse than... allowing them to do more damage than they are capable of paying for. The mind reels.

GREGORY: Let me turn to the issue of the BP oil spill, which the president was quite angry about after the appearance by CEOs on Capitol Hill this past week, including the CEO of BP. You heard Senator Schumer say there ought to be more effort on the part of the government to look over the shoulders of the oil companies. What do you say?

McCONNELL: Well, look, we're all angry about it. This is a--an environmental disaster of gargantuan proportions, but the president's spent a whole lot of time pointing the finger at, at BP--and you should point the finger at BP and the other companies involved in it. We're also interested in knowing what the administration did. Was the Mineral Management Service a part of this administration that approved this site? It also approved this spill response plan. What kind of oversight did the administration provide during the course of the drilling? There are plenty of questions that need to be answered, and there'll be adequate time for that. But the administration's involvement in this will be a big part of the inquiry. In the meantime, we need to do everything we can to stop this spill.

GREGORY: What about the issue of legitimate claims, as BP said, that it will honor? Do you think that the cap for damages should be higher now, higher than $75 million, as you heard Senator Schumer say they would propose?

McCONNELL: Well, the danger in that, of course, is that if you raise the cap too high, there will be no competition in the Gulf and you'll leave all the business to the big guys like BP. What BP has said they need to be held to, which is they're going to pay for this. They ought to pay for it, and they will pay for it. But the danger of taking the cap too high is that you end up with only massive, very large oil producers able to meet that cap and produce in the Gulf. And look, we can't walk away--and the president's not suggesting this either--from offshore drilling. As horrible as this is, it's important to remember that we get 30 percent of our oil from the Gulf and, if you shut that down, you'd have $14 gasoline.

I'd also like to know where the Republicans were during the eight years of the Bush administration with their concern about MMS. I say investigate away, but they'd better be going back ten years and not just one for the causes of the problems within that department.

DOWNLOADS: (489)

PLAYS: (1129)

Embed

Despite this news, Mike Papantonio is not optomistic that BP is going to end up making good on its promises.

Attorneys General Reach Agreement on Oil Spill:

State attorneys general have secured an agreement with BP over reimbursements owed to constituents following the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The agreement came as five gulf coast state attorneys general met with the oil conglomerate.

Speaking from Jackson, Mississippi, Attorneys General Jim Hood of Mississippi, Jerry Caldwell of Louisiana, and Troy King of Alabama explained they were "cautiously optimistic" about an agreement reached with the oil company.

As Ed Schultz and Mississippi AG Jim Hood discussed in the previous segment, BP looks like they're already judge shopping in Texas.

BP wants oil spill lawsuits centralized in Houston:

BP wants more than 70 lawsuits over the Gulf oil spill consolidated before a federal judge in Houston.

The oil giant is asking the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to have U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes to hear pretrial matters for all the cases.

Potential class-action lawsuits have been filed in every Gulf Coast state. Plaintiffs include commercial fishermen, business interests, property owners and others.

Mike Papantonio pointed out just what that might mean for anyone who hopes to recover and damages from BP, Transocean or Halliburton.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (605)

PLAYS: (1804)

Embed

Larry King talked to Robert Kennedy Jr. who is representing the fishermen in Louisiana in a class action law suit against British Petroleum and James Carville about the incident at the Deepwater Horizon rig. Besides the problems with Halliburton and their faulty work with the cementing process and the lack of and the lack of an acoustic switch, Kennedy said they were also violating their permit by drilling too deeply. Although they were only permitted to drill down 18,000 ft., Kennedy said they now have evidence that they were drilling as deeply as 25,000 ft.

As Kennedy noted and Susie already wrote about here, it seems all they're worried about now is limiting their liability although the company is now trying to walk that back after the bad publicity.

The Democrats are introducing a bill to raise the liability cap that Kennedy also cited as a problem with their litigation. I think we're going to be lucky to ever get a penny back from BP or any of the companies involved but if BP violated their drilling permit as Kennedy claims here, it's going to make it harder for them to avoid responsibility for the disaster instead of pawning it off on the subcontractors.