Anti-poker Sen. Lindsey Graham questioned Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch about online poker and the DoJ's 2011 reinterpretation of the Wire Act.

IQ of these goons is mind-boggling and their knowledge of making profit from online gambling is laughable.

Why would terrorists turn to online poker when they can just sell drugs and stolen oil? Am I making this too simple?

Besides, terrorists aren't sophisticated enough to run a site like PokerStars.

Did anyone else see Adelson pulling Graham's strings?

what a pathetic sellout

Is there even a single documented case of online gaming being used to fund terrorism?

That proves that the adage "knowledge is power" does NOT always apply. Some have a lot of power, but NOT a whole lot going on upstairs. And even if they did, their brains are so skewed and biased toward puppet string masters like Adelson, it is pathetic let alone hilariously amusing.

"Ignorance is bliss" is the more likely lesson here.

Of course not.

Would a constituent of Graham's pose the poker funding of terrorists question to him and report back the response?

I would phrase the email as follows, "Senator Graham, you have expressed a concern that terrorists could use online poker to fund their activities? Do you have any evidence that this is a valid concern?"

Graham just formed an exploratory committee to run for President. Adelson is a major bankroller of Republican nominees he likes. If Graham runs he'll need Adelson's money, this is Graham's continuing attempt to curry favor with Mr. Adelson.

Graham spends valuable question time with the AG nominee attacking online gaming for Mr. Adelson. Funding terrorism with online gaming is rather comical at face value, he used the terror angle to get Adelson's crusade more attention(various reasons for his crusade, one of which is to hurt a big competitor of his, Caesars.)

Bottom line is Graham is using his position to advocate for a billionaire, crony capitalism at its finest, so that Graham may reap the reward of Adelson's checkbook. It is disgusting, transparent, and needs to be outed loudly and continually.

Tell me what to do Engineer, I will focus all my energies on Mr. Graham.
I don't have a Twitter account, I'll get one. Who to email in his home state, including periodicals, whatever. Do you have knowledge as to Graham's history regarding online gaming and/or the Wire Act? Also, when did he start to become close to Adelson? Give me what you've got, I'll go from there.

If you are in his state, would you start by doing what I suggested? Also, if you are in his state, your post with a little tweaking sounds like it would be a fine letter to the editor or correspondence to your nearest paper's politics reporter.

Hi, kickabuck. In today's Daily Action Plan (weekend plan just posted in the DAP thread here in PL), there are four articles announcing Graham's presidential bid. You can leave a comment on each of these. I agree, we really need to get the facts outed. Also, setting up a twitter acct. is quick and easy.

Graham came on board with Adelson after Adelson hosted a high-dollar fundraiser at the Venetian in Las Vegas for Graham's re-election campaign.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...eldon-adelson/

Doc, I am in NJ.

GJ, thanks for the link, quite informative. His official statement opposing federal online legislation in 2010 comes in part from a states' rights perspective. Enter Sheldon Adelson, states' rights be damned apparently lol.

Do you guys know what 501(c)(4) groups helped finance Grahams' latest campaign? And if that can be known, can one find Adelsen's history funding said groups? I realize presently these tax exempt groups needn't list their donors, but how about in the past? Is it an open secret as to what organizations, and how, Adelsen funnels his money to his preferred candidates?

I prefer to be informed before getting vocal. Any other links or the like on this subject please share soon, I'm going to have fun and be relentless with Graham's bought and paid for nonsense.

If memory serves, Graham has been a pretty outspoken critic of unlimited soft money in elections. I know he was an ardent supporter of McCain, a champion of election finance reform for many years, though I cannot recall if he shared McCain's views on this subject. Anyhow, is there vulnerability for Graham(from the perspective of blatant hypocrisy), regarding the funding of Graham by Adelson? Share ideas with me if this seems like an area that could be exploited.

Good idea and someone should do this, but I think they would just flip it around and declare since there is no proof, that's proof. No amount of logic and reason can defeat them.

How about... "Senator Graham, you have expressed a concern that terrorists could use online poker to fund their activities? Where did you really get this idea? How does it feel to sell your soul to a nefarious individual like Sheldon Adelson. Was being a puppet your goal as a politician? When Adelson says "jump" and you say "how high?", does this make you feel like Kermit or Miss Piggy?"

It doesn't really matter what Graham's answer is as much as he answers.

Don't you think that is a little TOO insulting?

Set up a Twitter account, looks like Graham has 67,000 followers.

My first thoughts are it is likely wise to avoid insults and also the use of sarcasm to make a point. Sarcasm is omnipresent on the 'net and unless done quite well, can appear juvenile and haughty, and easily turns a reader off who is otherwise uninformed or on the fence on a subject. Bottom line is I want readers/followers and starting off as a wise ass is not a good look.

My hope with my account is to educate the uninformed and to shine a light on vulgarities such as Mr. Graham's apparent function of being a mouthpiece for Mr. Adelson.( I don't see any passion from Lindsey the couple times I've heard him speak on the subject of online gaming, nor any indication he has any idea what he is talking about.)

I've got my Twitter handle, but thinking about getting one that emphasizes poker freedom. Any ideas on that idea or potential names? Thanks for any thoughts.

TYou have a good approach in my opinion. The idea isn't to change the minds of the leaders of the opposition. It is to inform those below the leaders who are unaware, aware and on the fence, or aware but can be converted. Insults and overt sarcasm on such a transmission source would turn off more people than the number it would hook.

No matter how Graham responds, I have already thought of my response so that is why I said to the other poster it doesn't matter how Graham responds. It actually doesn't matter if he doesn't respond either because a response has been formulated for that scenario, too.

What my suggested responses would be I won't say because it would be like playing poker with the cards face up.

Graham was on Face The Nation this morning, but I don't know what he said. I have it taped, though.

I don't REALLY want to play online poker. But I would REALLY like the freedom to decide how to spend my money without the government banning my recreational activities for unfounded and absurd reasons.

But what I want more than anything is a country that stands up against cronyism and corruption within its highest political offices.

I'd shudder to think they're doing it for free.

With a little expanding to make it clear to the average joe as to who you are talking about, this would make an excellent letter to the editor.

It would also work as something to send to those in Washington.

Here is a little different idea for an approach to Lindsey Graham. Keep in mind that while the Republicans have control of Congress now, when the smoke clears at the end of the day, they still need to go back to their constituents and say they got some things done. Even the Keystone Pipeline will be dead in the water for them as Obama will veto it.

What could an accomplishment be for them (without even costing their MAIN constituents)? Raise revenue via state (if not federal) taxes on those of us who participate in online gaming. This can bring at least a little more (if not a lot more) small business, jobs, and economic vitality to your state. Let your Rep know that regardless of any current economic recovery, you are cognizant that the Rep's state is still starving for more revenue relative to its expenditures in its overall budget. Your Rep can go back to their home constituents and say "I raised X dollars for our state without costing average John Doe taxpayer a dime by only taxing those who commit to "gambling" activites on the net. This can make them look good and seen as a productive member of Congress while we can get through what we simply desire - a legalized format to pursue our passion and even careers. He can escape the reputation as the party of "No".

Think like your counterparty thinks. I am not saying any of this is 100% effective, not by a long stretch. But just put yourself in his head and write or say to him what he wants to hear to parallel with your own objective. In other words, make it a win-win. This is really the business of propping up ego which the politics is pinned off of at the end of the day. No amount of funding by Adelson or his wish of federal banning something will fulfill a basic element for your Reps - a POSITIVE CONSTRUCTIVE LEGACY of getting things done for their people.

I wouldn't word it exactly like that. IIRC he's been saying that someone from the FBI said that online gaming could be used to launder money for terrorism. He'll just cite that and come out smelling like a rose. If you ask them if it has ever actually happened then he could still cite the FBI but you can just come back and say he didn't answer your question.

This thread is about Sen. Graham's questioning of AG nominee Loretta Lynch on the online poker issue. Those who were debating the relative merits of online poker can find that discussion at: I agree with Lindsey Graham

That's great. I think you'll be best by joining us at the Daily Action Plan each day. It will get you used to Twitter, Facebook, and social media grassroots activism in general, along with helping with the DAP itself.

It seems he had no interest in the online poker issue until Sheldon Adelson approached him with it.

If you don't reside in SC, it may be best for you to help us post on articles where his presidential plans are reported on. I think we can hold some sway early on in the race. In other words, a little opposition goes a long way at this stage.

Thanks for the response Rich. I'm PokerAmericana on Twitter, I'll be getting active very soon.

Thanks for what you and others do, amazed how people can find time for activism, it ain't easy.