Jane Hamsher

Last active
13 hours, 10 minutes ago
  • smacks of juvenile frat-boy solutions

    Definitely.

  • I should confess that the reason Kevin was watching TMZ Live is because came to DC to cover the event with Chelsea Manning’s new lawyer and he’s staying with me, and I frigging LOVE TMZ and have it on all the time. I watch TMZ, TMZ live, TMZ sports — I think Harvey Levin is a genius and the show is a truly populist news format for the digital age.

    I’ve been working on a piece on “what CNN could learn from TMZ,” but it’s shaping up to be so long it’s approaching novella length.

  • I’m very disappointed that President Obama hasn’t acted more forcefully to put an end to this savage brutality but I do understand that in all likelihood his advisers might not be fully informing him of the gravity of this vicious abuse that Chelsea is being subjected to.

    When Chelsea was being stripped naked at Quantico and forced to stand at attention before guards each morning in solitary confinement Obama actually made a statement to the effect that he had looked into the situation and found that her treatment was appropriate.

    Hard to imagine his investigation turned up less than the public knew, which was that Manning’s conditions were appalling.

  • Moreover, as Abbe Lowell made clear in a conference we went to a couple of weeks ago, massive amounts of money and man hours are being spent by the DoJ trying to find a way to criminalize journalists who publish classified information.

    And according to Barton Gellman, one of the ways they are trying to implicate journalists is by claiming they “abet” the theft of documents. So for instance if a source calls a journalist with an assertion, and the journalist says (as they always do) “I need proof,” that could be interpreted by the DoJ as inducing someone to steal classified information.

    So basically this decision by the Pulitzer committee saves face for them by awarding the prize to the media outlets, but still leaves room for the DoJ to prosecute the journalists involved — you know, the old “it was great that the information started this wonderful national conversation but the journalists who engaged in illegal behavior still need to be held to account” kind of way. That becomes a lot harder to do if that journalist won a Pulitzer for the work.

    Bottom line, the Putlizers represent DC groupthink. That’s why professional mewling drivler and CNN ratings killer Kathleen Parker gets a Pulitzer, and Glenn Greenwald does not. And DC considers itself a city violated by the Snowden leaks.

    The Pulizers would’ve rendered themselves meaningless if they completely overlooked the Snowden leaks, so they did the absolute minimum possible. And in doing so, left the door open for the DoJ to take its revenge on behalf of a city scorned such that the journalists involved could not take refuge in the hallowed Pulizer name (for whatever that’s worth) when the boom drops.

  • A lot of people thought that Manning’s legal team suffered for the lack of a civilian lawyer on the case from the start, and believed that person should have been Hollander. This is a welcome turn of events, and many believe there is nobody better suited to represent Manning on appeal.

  • Jane Hamsher commented on the blog post Top Ten At Ten 4/8/2014

    2014-04-08 10:03:46View | Delete

    I’m not sure who read that Chait piece and said “man this is golden, let’s put it on the cover” but in a just world they’d be standing in the unemployment line right about now. Joan Walsh pulls more meaning out of it than I could. It reads like gibberish.

  • Jane Hamsher commented on the blog post Sharpton Confirms Involvement With FBI, Disputes Extent

    2014-04-08 09:07:04View | Delete

    Who leaked this to the press and why now? I thought the FBI kept the list of their informants confidential?

    Agreed. Who leaks the identity of “confidential” informants?

    This whole thing is weird. There’s no good explanation for any of it.

  • shorter version, boomer fossils are still fighting their culture wars and living in 1973 — and still rocking the same haircut from 1981

    Ding ding ding, we have a winner

  • Jane Hamsher commented on the blog post Sharpton Confirms Involvement With FBI, Disputes Extent

    2014-04-08 07:52:40View | Delete

    I’m pretty sure your author is right. Just saying there are other possibilities.

  • Jane Hamsher commented on the blog post Sharpton Confirms Involvement With FBI, Disputes Extent

    2014-04-08 07:39:46View | Delete

    Point made in the novel (admittedly fiction) is that people don’t become informants for the FBI, unless the Fibbies have something on you.

    The only people I’ve known who admitted to having been asked to inform for the FBI were people they thought had access to someone under investigation. Whether they did or not is debatable, but they were offered money for their services.

  • Jane Hamsher commented on the blog post Sharpton Confirms Involvement With FBI, Disputes Extent

    2014-04-08 07:37:31View | Delete

    Thanks DW ;)

  • Jane Hamsher commented on the blog post Sharpton Confirms Involvement With FBI, Disputes Extent

    2014-04-08 07:11:05View | Delete

    Yesterday he didn’t do it, today he did and he deserves a medal.

    Most people don’t just wander in to the FBI and offer to risk their lives wearing a wire with the mob if they’re afraid for their lives in the first place.

    The shot at Elliot Spitzer also seems a bit gratuitous.

    Maybe it happened just the way he said it did. But the story seems…incomplete.

  • I think you articulated it pretty well. I’ll probably be an early adopter as I can see it being a useful device, but I also think it’s wise to be alert for potential for privacy concerns.

  • Jane Hamsher commented on the blog post Al Sharpton Was Previously FBI Informant

    2014-04-07 12:05:26View | Delete

    Since when do task force members rat out their informers, even anonymously? Not that I doubt the veracity of the reporting, but this whole thing is weird.

  • We didn’t get that. But the ACA changes let my niece get her back injury treated on her parents’ insurance, they force my insurance company to cover some of my daughter’s issues that weren’t covered before, they could allow me to work as a consultant instead of for a corporation if I chose to (multiple pre-existing conditions in our family made buying individual insurance impossible before), and it’s enabled many, many people who were previously shut out to get coverage even if that coverage is flawed.

    And it jacked my policy up from $460 to $940 per month, and forced a lot of young healthy people to buy insurance they didn’t need.

    Are you sure the benefits for your niece had to be done to the detriment of others? Because I’m not sure it’s an either/or equation. Even the Republicans are saying if they repeal of Obamacare they would still allow young people to be kept on their parents’ policy.

    In the final days even Rahm was saying the omnibus bill with the mandate should be scrapped, and piecemeal fixes (like allowing young people on their parents’ policy) should be passed alone. I often hear people say that such piecemeal fixes would never have passed, but even Rahm knew these smaller changes had more congressional support.

    Obama wanted this big bill, he fought for it, he got it. He doesn’t get the benefit of the “it was this or nothing” argument, because that simply wasn’t the case.

  • Jane Hamsher commented on the blog post Grading Obamacare on a Curve

    2014-04-02 15:26:05View | Delete

    Ah, yes, the Save Health Insurance Today Act, reinforcing the notion that healthcare is the result of owning a middleman’s parasitical, commercial product.

    You ought to get the job writing acronyms for these things. Brilliant.

  • Don’t forget about the Iceman.

    Manadel al-Jamadi (Arabic: مناضل الجمادي‎) was an Iraqi who was murdered in United States custody during Central Intelligence Agency interrogation at Abu Ghraib Prison on 4 November 2003.[1] His name became known in 2004 when the Abu Ghraib scandal made news; his corpse packed in ice was the background for widely-reprinted photographs of grinning US Army Specialists Sabrina Harman and Charles Graner each offering a “thumbs-up” gesture. Al-Jamadi had been a suspect in a bomb attack that killed 12 people in a Baghdad Red Cross facility.[2]

    A military autopsy declared al-Jamadi’s death a homicide but no one has ever been held accountable for his death. In 2011, almost eight years later, Attorney General Eric Holder said that he had opened a full criminal investigation into al-Jamadi’s death.[3][4] In August 2012, Holder announced that no criminal charges would be brought.

    When I was at the DoJ in Northern Virginia with Dan Choi and David House and the Wikileaks grand jury was empaneled we met Lindy England in the lobby. She was being questioned in a separate grand jury about the Iceman, since she was there at the time and said she heard him screaming but she didn’t take part or know who was involved. I guess they decided to just sweep it all under the rug.

    There’s a special place in hell for the “look forward, not back” crew on this stuff.

  • Yeah call me when Eric Schneiderman gets off the dime and does anything.

    It will come just moments after poll numbers come out showing the public overwhelmingly wants something to happen — and it will be purely cosmetic.

  • In Exxon’s view, governments will chose to raise the cost of fossil fuels to encourage alternatives somewhat, but stop well short of enacting policies that will sharply curtail consumption, especially in developing countries, because populations would resist and social upheaval would result.

    Nice society you have here. Shame if anything happened to it.

  • Jane Hamsher commented on the blog post Du Pont Heir Gets Probation After Raping Three-Year-Old

    2014-03-31 10:04:56View | Delete

    Unbelievable.

    I guess it just goes to show 1% justice is alive and well.

  • Load More