HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Before ABC TV's "Scandal:...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 09:49 AM

Before ABC TV's "Scandal:" SCOTUS v. POTUS v. SCOTUS

Last edited Mon Apr 15, 2013, 12:26 PM - Edit history (1)

A key to Scandal's truth-telling mission in regard to THE Scandals of both the 20th and 21st Centuries: the professional assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK and the professional hacks of the 2000, 2004 and 2010 U.S. elections, is its fictional portrayal of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice as having been involved in: 1) funding the attempted assassination of the President, 2) the conspiracy to rig the Presidential election with a software on electronic voting machines in Defiance, Ohio, 3) suffering to the point of death at the hands of the President. Pretty heavy stuff for prime time, highest-rated television. How is that for "conspiracy theory?"

One can listen on the Internet to President Johnson's conversation with J. Edgar Hoover about not wanting to have a Congressional investigation of the assassination of JFK and wanting Hoover to handle it before a Presidential Commission chaired by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Chief Justice Roberts as a private attorney worked on the prepping of the argument presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. The 2000 Florida election involved a combination of rigged paper ballots and rigged electronic voting machines. Chief Justice Roberts engineered the January 2010 Citizens United decision that unleashed unprecedented levels of funding for the purpose of allowing the Rove, Koch, Chamber combine to take of statehouses and legislative redistricting for the next decade, and attempt to deny President Obama's reelection.

In a few short sentences President Obama decimated the credibility of the partisan Republican majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in his 2010 State of the Union Address. President Obama, a former professor of Constitutional Law, admonished the Chief Justice for reversing one hundred years of sound judicial precedent constraining the use of corporate treasury money to influence candidate elections, in overturning both the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, signed by President Bush, and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, authored by Justice Thurgood Marshall.



11 replies, 1386 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Before ABC TV's "Scandal:" SCOTUS v. POTUS v. SCOTUS (Original post)
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 OP
Archae Apr 2013 #1
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 #6
ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #2
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 #3
CanSocDem Apr 2013 #4
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 #5
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 #7
Marta Steele Apr 2013 #8
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 #9
Cliff Arnebeck Apr 2013 #10
Marta Steele Aug 7 #11

Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 09:56 AM

1. "Scandal" is FICTION.

Going to start talking up the "X-Files" next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 12:42 PM

6. Scandal getting away with telling the truth by presenting it in the form of fiction

I used to enjoy watching the X-Files, but never thought there was much hidden meaning to it.

Have you watched Scandal? It's almost too fast moving to be entertaining to anyone other than a speed viewer with substantial inside knowledge of the political process. I know some of the people involved, so I get the truth they are telling, disguised in fictional form, so they can get away with telling it. You can't portray Karl Rove admitting to election theft and hiring a contract killer to take out his lover before he gets to a grand jury hearing, if you use his real name.

Being an election lawyer helps get the points they are trying to make with the female Supreme Court Justice involved in the fictional story--in ways that go beyond anyone's wildest imagination. It's symbolic, not literal.

Cliff

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 10:09 AM

2. You pretty well lost credibility with the "professional assassinations" part

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 10:40 AM

3. Forensic evidence of professional assassinations: JFK, MLK, and RFK

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:40 AM - Edit history (2)

I highlighted the forensic evidence of professional assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK in this thread on Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/14/1201748/-Speaking-of-Scandals

James Douglass' book, "JFK and the Unspeakable" rises to Biblical quality in making the assassination understandable in human terms.

I thought the Zapruder film of the professional shot to the front of President Kennedy's head, also blew the credibility of the Warren Commission's report with the American public. A video is worth a million words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 10:42 AM

4. I don't think so...



If nothing else, the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK etc, were clearly not random gun violence.

As for the fictionalized account, they might as well try "fiction" to engage the American public as the 'truth' remains elusive and uninteresting to the average citizen.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanSocDem (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 11:30 AM

5. Just say no to election stealing and political assassinations, as depicted in "Scandal"

I think 'truth' remains somewhat elusive to the average citizen, because of the professional camouflage of it.

The average citizen is interested in getting the truth--particularly about how our New Deal inheritance got swiped from us and replaced by a raw deal for the average citizen.

And, once the average citizen gets the truth about that . . . well, let's just say there will be a strong deliberative consensus in support of President Obama and Attorney General Holder leading a restoration of the rule of law in the United States--particularly in the relation to election stealing and assassinations of political leaders. These crimes are treasonous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 08:49 AM

7. Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (Three Volumes) by Barry Krusch (Jun 22, 2012)

This set of forensic evidence comes with a $60,000 offer to anyone who can prove to an Amazon jury that Oswald was guilty.

All three volumes are available on Kindle at Amazon for about $10, total!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 10:09 AM

8. excellent paragraphs

but it seems like every time I tune in there is nothing but the underside of this
program and I turn it off. Too much Olivia. I'll have to have more patience, though,
I'm sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marta Steele (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 11:46 AM

9. "Scandal" is 100% art--nothing gratuitous--not even the sex

Thanks very much, Marta.

I have not figured out "Scandal" as the masterful work of art that I believe it is, except for parts of it. However, I am confident that the sex, and every line in the script, are there in service to the profound messages the series is bringing to us.

Cliff

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marta Steele (Reply #8)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:59 PM

10. Marta Steele: major EI/progressive author!

See: http://www.opednews.com/author/author8481.html

Bob Fitrakis and I greatly appreciate all of Marta Steele's brilliant work combating the "crime of the century."

Cliff Arnebeck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cliff Arnebeck (Reply #10)

Thu Aug 7, 2014, 10:27 AM

11. thanks belately

Cliff, I've been out of the loop for awhile but add back my deepest appreciation to you and Bob.
Re Spandan Chakrabarti, I have no problem with liberals or even Deaniacs--I've been called one myself. Re his New Yorker article, the style is SO New Yorker and dovetailed greatly with my research on my sequel to GGPP. Now that's what I call skilled writing! What do you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread