Login Here
I'm a partnered gay man, and I have to say, WTF is the Human Rights Campaign thinking endorsing anti-marriage, anti-privacy Joe Lieberman? Rape Gurney Joe has never truly risked a thing for GLBT people, ever. He's helped install James Dobson endorsed judges to the Supreme Court like Sam Alito and he's done everything possible to undermine a progressive agenda in America. But the policiy of the Human Slights Campaign is so wedded to its fancy black tie fundraisers and corporate connections that it's more than willing to sell out the people it shakes down to finance its operations. Thankfully, local GLBT people and their allies in Connecticut (and all over the country) know who's really on their side: Ned Lamont.
The list of evidence demonstrating George Bush's Favorite Democrat's antipathy to GLBT people - except as a constituency to be manipulated - is long. He plays to the faux-morality, anti-privacy intrusion crowd and games the HRC scorecard to maximum effect while undercutting everything GLBT people and their allies fight for:
Joe's anti-gay record doesn't end there: He told the New Haven Advocate that “homosexuality is wrong,” joined with notorious homo-hater Jesse Helms in voting to take away federal funding from schools that counsel suicidal gay teens that it’s okay to be gay. On gays in the military, Lieberman has enunciated the now-discredited canard that “homosexual conduct can harm unit cohesion and effectiveness.” (Tell that to the dozens of countries, from England to Israel, that permit openly gay troops in their armed forces.)
In fact, Lieberman worked with Georgia’s Sam Nunn to fashion the destructive “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which resulted in escalating expulsions of gays from the military every year after it took effect. Its Catch-22 provisions have directly stimulated a rising wave of violent gay bashing and harassment in the military because victims can’t complain without “telling.”
How quickly and conveniently HRC forgets. CT activists do not suffer these delusions - Anne Stanback, Director of Love Makes a Family, is in Lamont's camp.
Interviewed for this article, here's what Ned Lamont had to say:
LAMONT: I think we’ve got a federal government that is intruding into our private lives more and more every day. It was evidenced by the Terri Schiavo case, it’s evidenced by the appointment of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, and it’s evidenced in terms of gay rights. I think if two people want to get married let them get married. We don’t want the government intruding into our churches, into our private lives. I strongly oppose the constitutional amendment that’s been bandied about every election cycle in Washington DC outlawing the right of two people who are in love to get married.
FDL: The Human Rights Campaign, the principle lobbying organization in Washington DC on behalf of GLBT rights, has come out in support of your opponent, Senator Lieberman. Do you have any thoughts on that endorsement?
LAMONT: What’ I’m learning about the political process is that, at the national level, there’s a real tendency to support the incumbents, but at the local level – here in the state of Connecticut and I think you’ll find this elsewhere – you have a lot of members who feel differently. I’m finding that on the union front and I think we’re finding that on the HRC front as well. Sometimes the national organizations don’t necessarily speak for their supporters on the ground level.
FDL: In summation, then, why do you feel that supporters of GLBT equality should support you in the Connecticut-Senate primary?
LAMONT: Because I strongly believe that rather than us having a federal government that tries to take rights away from people, we need a federal government that guarantees rights for people. Guarantees them a right to privacy; guarantees them a right to live their lives without federal interference. I think the Bush administration has been wrong on this. I think Senator Lieberman is too likely to mix religion and politics, and I believe that, when it comes to gay rights, that’s the next civil rights struggle, and rather than take away people’s rights, we should be fighting to guarantee rights.
Asked to comment on it's endorsement of Senator Lieberman, here's what Mike Mings, the HRC's Deputy Director of Electoral Activities and PAC Manager, had to say. This interview was conducted on May 23. The tone was friendly but our questions were direct:
FDL: The HRC has taken some criticism for its endorsement of Senator Lieberman over candidate Lamont. Do you have any comment on that?
MINGS: Well, Senator Lieberman has a strong record of supporting fairness for all Americans. He’s someone that, in his three decades, has been consistently, by our standard, on the side of fairness for our issues, and that’s why we’ve endorsed him.
FDL: The HRC offers this endorsement in spite of a couple of things, and we’d like to offer you the opportunity to comment. First, he has been clear in his opposition to equal marriage rights. Any thoughts on that?
MINGS: What we score senators on is bills that come before their jurisdiction in the senate. He has been an outspoken opponent of the Federal Marriage Amendment, so that is what we score on, something that his vote matters on, so that is one of the issues, among several others, such as his co-sponsorship of the Domestic Partner Benefits Act, treatment for HIV, support of hate crimes legislation, employment nondiscrimination. He has a long record that supports GLBT issues.
FDL: Does your scorecard have all votes as scored equally or do you weight any of these votes with regard to their potential impact on the movement long term?
MINGS: Honestly, that’s not a question I know, exactly how we weight the scorecards. I think it’s my understanding that the Federal Marriage Amendment is one that’s weighted more heavily than the others. I know if candidates are not opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment, it’s not something that would lead us to endorse them.
FDL: The vote for cloture on Judge Alito certainly raised a lot of eyebrows. Judge Alito is not expected to be friendly to privacy rights, which include the rights of GLBT people. How does that figure, or does that not figure, into your decision to endorse Senator Lieberman?
MINGS: I’ll have to get back to you to see if that was something we scored on, on the Judge Alito vote. I’m just not sure if that was one of the votes we scored.
FDL: Since the marriage rights issue has been paramount in the GLBT fight for equality on both the federal and state levels, and since that fight has mostly played itself out in the courts, wouldn’t the vote for cloture on Alito count more heavily than others?
MINGS: Well, like I said, I’ll have to see if that’s something that we scored on. I’m just not sure if that’s part of the scorecard.
FDL: Can you cite for our readers any instance where Senator Lieberman actually took something of a political risk, at any point in his career, in standing up for GLBT equality?
MINGS: He spoke out strongly in favor of the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which was obviously an important ruling for the GLBT community. He’s been someone who’s been outspoken on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which has been, probably, the most destructive piece of legislation that’s been introduced to our movement in recent history. So, those are quite courageous moves on his part, and something obviously we have been very supportive of him doing, and proud of him to do that.
FDL: The Senator has pretty regularly voted in favor of federal religious funding, and has taken strong positions against gays in the military. He’s enunciated the discredited notion that homosexual conduct can harm unit cohesion and effectiveness. Does that figure into the HRC’s endorsement of Senator Lieberman?
MINGS: I’m sorry, what did you say his stance was on that?
FDL: The quote is, “Homosexual conduct can harm unit cohesion and effectiveness.”
MINGS: Well, like I said, we have to go on votes that senators make in their capacity that actually will have an impact one way or the other. From what we’ve seen in recent history, he’s scored consistently at one hundred percent in the 106th Congress, eighty-three percent in the 105th, eighty-nine percent in the 104th. He’s consistently scored near the top on the issues that are important to the GLBT community. We have to take all of that into consideration when we look at endorsements.
FDL: Have you looked at any of the positions of candidate Lamont in determining the extent to which he might support full marriage rights in ways that Senator Lieberman does not? Does that figure into your endorsement decision?
MINGS: Part of our endorsement decision is based upon incumbency, and when we have an incumbent who’s in office who is consistently fighting for our rights, then we tend to side on the side of incumbents to continue with that long record that’s been proven.
FDL: Is the political advancement of GLBT rights better served by a strong Democratic majority in Congress, or is your non-partisan position dedicated solely to looking at individual candidates, biased toward incumbents?
MINGS: We’re a bipartisan organization, so what we look at is both Republicans and Democrats who have stated positions or who have a record that shows that they stand on the side of fairness. So, we really look at candidates on a case-by-case basis.
FDL: So it’s really not important to you to have, for example, a Democratic controlled senate, which can actually bring forth and support legislation safeguarding GLBT rights?
MINGS: No, I really wouldn’t say that that’s not necessarily important to us. There’s no doubt about it that this administration, and the leadership in Congress today, have been some of the most destructive leaders for the GLBT community, and that’s something that is important for us, that we get leadership that will be elected that will serve our community in a way that is both productive and respectful of our rights.
FDL: Senator Lieberman has taken the position to Democrats that criticism of the administration is unfounded during a time of war, and actually undermines the strength of the country. Since your position recognizes that it’s better to have Democrats in legislative control of the agenda in Congress, if Senator Lieberman is discouraging the very efforts of other Democrats to assert more control of the agenda by criticizing the administration, how do you reconcile that with your endorsement of Senator Lieberman?
MINGS: Well, you know, we’re not going to agree necessarily one hundred percent of the time on every issue, but what we have to go on is Senator Lieberman’s voting record, and his voting record is one that stands on the side of equality. We believe that this administration and this leadership in Congress, has been very hostile to the GLBT community and we are very outspoken on that, making those beliefs known.
FDL: Can you point to a success on behalf of the HRC, in terms of its work? For people who donate to the HRC, GLBT people, what’s your success record?
MINGS: On electing candidates, or on what, exactly? Our dollars have gone to. . .
FDL: Changing law.
MINGS: . . .making sure that many candidates have been elected to office who promote equality in states across the country. In Washington, it was because of the work that we did that helped get a statewide non-discrimination policy in place. Same thing in Maine. We were able to defeat constitutional amendments in at least six legislatures this session. So, you know, it’s sort of the way you measure success. In corporate America, we’ve pushed Fortune 500 companies so that eighty-three percent of those companies now have nondiscrimination policies that protect their GLBT employees. So, there’s a lot of different fronts that this movement is being fought on; this is something we’re involved in on a multitude of levels, at the federal government as well as state government and corporate America.
FDL: Is it fair, then, to say that you have no success stories to cite for us on the federal level?
MINGS: No. We have legislation on the federal level we can cite for you.
FDL: NOW and NARAL have looked at this race and have begun to approach their endorsement decision differently, taking not only the micro-view of Senator Lieberman’s vote on this or that piece of legislation, but looking also at the whole picture of Senator Lieberman’s record. They’ve come out in support of candidate Lamont’s campaign, recognizing that Senator Lieberman actually undercuts the advancement of a progressive agenda that protects women’s rights, as well, as many would observe, as GLBT rights. Why is that same calculus rejected by the HRC?
MINGS: We have a strict guideline of the way we endorse candidates that’s been approved by our Board, and those issues that we rank candidates on and score them by our card is what we have to go on. Given that the votes that we’ve scored for Senator Lieberman, he comes out at a place where he shows a strong support of fairness for the GLBT community.
FDL: Was Judge Alito supported by the HRC?
MINGS: No.
FDL: Senator Lieberman was part of the infamous “Gang of Fourteen” that cut off the ability of progressive Democrats to be able to threaten a filibuster in the Senate against any judicial nominee, thereby enabling the ascension to the Court of both Roberts and Alito, particularly Alito, for whom there may have been the votes to support a filibuster. Given that Judge Alito will serve on the Court for a good, maybe, thirty years, and given that he was the preferred and endorsed judge by people like James Dobson, why would that not be considered as a much larger issue than, say, a vote for ENDA which had no chance of passing, making it a “free vote?”
MINGS: Ah, like I said, I’ll have to see whether the Alito vote was scored or not, because I’m just not aware if it was.
FDL: Thanks for returning our call and giving your point of view for our readers.
MINGS: Thank you.
Mings seemed like a nice enough guy defending a phenominally stupid policy (in seventy-two hours, he has not gotten back to me with more information, as promised during the interview).
This self-defeating, idiotic, scorecard-driven myopia, dictated by the HRC Board, is not unique to the HRC, but common among national, progressive, single issue advocacy groups. The same thinking animates groups like the Sierra Club, where the need to solicit funds leads to a "bipartisan" stance that creates a stragetic gameplan that in turn undercuts the very agenda these national groups ostensibly represent. I included the whole interview with Mings in order to be fair, and also to illustrate the mindset that endorses a candidate who actually is cynically worse for the HRC's financial supporters than is his opponent.
Endorsed by ultra-conservative phony "maverick" hack John McCain, Joe Lieberman is at the forefront of the movement to undercut the ascension of a progressive governing majority. Ned Lamont, on the other hand, is at the tip of the spear of a movement to advance a progressive governing majority. And on the very issue most important to GLBT families like mine - equal marriage rights - Joe Lieberman is against us, no matter how many times he votes against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Furthermore, the only thing risky about supporting the Lawrence v. Texas decision is if you consider your constituency to be represented by Sean Hannity, as Joe Lieberman apparently does.
Ned Lamont is the right candidate for Democrats in and out of Connecticut for a host of reasons, but GLBT families deserve to know in particular why he is right for them. Go ahead and reread Ned's clear words quoted above. Ask yourself, has George Bush's Favorite Democrat ever said anything so clear and right? Of course not. Instead, he stands up for theocratic wingnuts, against privacy and against marriages like that of Michael to Terri Schiavo.
If you're a supporter of the Human Slights Campaign, let them know what you think about their endorsement of the anti-marriage candidate in Connecticut. In my house, we're cutting them off from funding, and you may want to do the same. I've been invited to the black tie affairs, but rather than dust off a tux and pony up over $100 per plate to rub elbows with Ben Affleck, I'd rather give some money love to Ned Lamont.
Human Rights Campaign:
1640 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036-3278
Front Desk: 202/628-4160
TTY: 202/216-1572
Toll-Free: 800/777-4723
Membership Toll-Free: 800/727-4723
Fax: 202/347-5323
For general HRC inquiries/comments, please contact hrc@hrc.org.
For membership-specific inquires/comments, please contact membership@hrc.org
Share This 
Spotlight
Fitz!
Pach!
Any polls out on the Lamont race? Does anyone think he has a chance?
Pach, you have some gibberish (html?) in your article.
Fitz, Rootz, and Kweehs Rool!
neuro: where?
rwcole: I know of no polling since the convention.
Maybe the glbt community should take joementums backstabbing as a compliment. For years they’ve said they want to be treated equally and here it is, a shank in the back from the man who has put a shank in all our backs.
Seriously though, all snark aside. Why would you support Lieberman, Gay rights issues aside. He has done nothing for the American people(besides shit on them and rub it in) as a whole let alone the gay community. Supporting the status quo is the worst thing anyone could do in a sutuation like we are in and I for one am very glad that people are turning on Lieberman.
God. These HRC yutzes are gonna get some serious Jane-NARALing from me.
Very timely Pach. Thanks. I was absolutely sickened to see Hillary Clinton kowtow to the women haters like coffin Joe recently.
The proper treatment of GLBT’s and women’s right to choose are non negotiable netrootz demands.
Candidates who remember at all times that they are public servants will prosper - those who bend over forward like Vichy democrats will wither.
ALL POWER TO THE ROOTZ!
“We seek him here, we seek him there, those Americans seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven–is he in hell? That damned elusive Fitzernel.”
Nice interview! Good solid, hard-hitting questions. I’ll bet it at least spurs a review from within their own ranks.
Lieberman deserves to be hit hard on the Alito vote! There is no excuse imo. On that note: why so little uproar over the Kavanaugh confirmation? An awful horrible result - how did this unqualified partisan hack not get filibustered?
Get off homosexual agenda and get on fake war agenda. You’re free to get married if you want, no one can stop you. Making it a political issues just detracts from much more important issues like the unjust killing of women and children
Pach: in your interviews with Lamont and Mings. A lot of stuff inserted like (I don’t know whether WordPress will print that…)
I’m sure it would be an interesting research subject for some sociologist to examine the morphology of special interest groups. They seem to be started out by people who are committed to a particular point of view. These people have very clear goals that they make the entire point of their organizations. As time goes on, the organizations lose these people one way or another, and become, for lack of a better word, “corporate”. They are dedicated to preserving themselves, and have a greater or lesser interest in doing whatever their original task was. I usually suspect a nonprofit has reached this point when professional telemarketers call me to ask for donations.
If you look at what’s happened to NARAL, MADD, or the Sierra Club, they’ve followed this path. My guess is that HRC has, too. Do they use professional telemarketers yet?
There’s probably some time after which such organizations should just be disbanded, to be replaced by organizations that still care about the cause enough to risk their existence for it.
rootz!
Great article and interview, Pacha, you really held HRC’s feet to the fire. These tired tux-wearing cocktail-weenie sucking corporatists who claim to represent us are running a tired non-profit model into the ground. And — get a clue, HRC! — not getting back to a blogger after 72 hours? That shows how ready their gate is to get crashed.
HRC is not just unclear about cyberspace — they’ve opened a “store” at 19th and Castro where tourists can buy HRC bumper stickers and hats, thus undercutting the local AIDS-prevention-benefitting non-profit retail operation halfway down the block. Local activists are unhappy they’ve muscled in at the bricks-and-mortar level. HRC hoovers cash to DeeCee and pretends they’re looking out for us, but their Lieberman endorsement — and your interview about their actual results at the Federal level — shows they’re impotent.
Thanks for this — well done!
Does anyone else see the odd words and symbols in the interviews above? If it makes any difference, I have a Dell PC with Windows 2000, and I am running on MSN.
realitycheck — you’re likely to learn quite soon just how kindly our blogmistresses take to advice like yours, so directive and cocksure!
neuro: I don’t see it.
I want to know when it was exactly that advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club and Human Rights Campaign began to morph into corporations that forgot just what their missions were in the first place. ANYONE can look good when they vote in Congress, but Lieberman’s “short cab ride” quote should preclude ANY progressive advocacy group from supporting him.
The responses from Mike Mings lead me to believe that he has no idea why the group endorsed Joe Lieberman, other then he’s an incumbent who happened to cast a vote once against the Federal Marriage Amendment. That’s sad.
17-
I see it too, but I can read around it.
Scorecards seem a singularly uninformative means of assessing a politician. I remember a few weeks ago someone mentioned one such group that measured how liberal Senators were. It turned out on the votes they counted 90% of Democratic Senators scored 90% or higher. I bet you didn’t realize what a bunch of liberals we have in the Senate. I didn’t either. Still don’t.
Yep, I see the weird words and html coding too.
Must be from the cut-and-paste from the original microsuck Word transcription.
Why are you such a big fan of the idea of cracking down on dissenters? Are you in the Bush administration?
The article looks properly formatted to me. There are a number of superscripts, which may not be rendered properly on all browsers. Stuff like the 106th Congress, etc.
Fortunately, all the gay people who actually vote (you know, all eleven of us, okay I’m kidding, it’s 37 of us) have already plugged into the Lamont campaign. For anyone who hasn’t, you all probably have a listserve or Yahoo! group that you can send a note to your CT pals to consider Ned, which I have to the tune of untold dollars (untold because I want you to believe it was more than it was, don’t worry, I’ll have more before primary day).
Let me paraphrase Natalie Maines here:
I’m embarrassed that I share the same first name with Joe Lieberman.
Oh, BTW, HRC can stuff it.
Many non GLBT people like me, understand that GLBT’s request that they be treated fairly and equally as American citizens. We must support the GLBT community in their quest for equal treatment under the law. In so doing, we help to put down the fascist/right wing/religious agenda whose purpose is to further degrade and dumb down our society so that the people will continue to vote against their own interests. Good work Pach!
The only weirdness I see in the post is a really funky sentence within the interview:
“FDL: NOW and NARAL have looked, and race and have begin to approach their endorsement decision differently..”
Another great post, Pachacutec.
Use of the legislative scorecard by groups like HRC suggests laziness on their part. Apparently they will favor an incumbent with an OK score card on a very select range of issues over a challenger who may actually hold positions that are more in the organization’s interests. T
o compare the two fairly and effectively, they would need to do more in-depth research, interview the candidates, and give considerable weight to those candidates’ constituents, including members of the state chapters of their organizations.
I would have liked to ask Mings whether their endorsement formula automatically favors incumbents. If so, it discriminates against truly outstanding candidates who could really advance their agendas, like Lamont. Stupid.
I am very interested in finding out whether they used the votes on Alito and how they scored the votes–does Joementum get 50 percent credit if he voted for cloture but against Alito on the meaningless confirmtion vote? The cloture vote is the only thing that should count. I am surprised someone in Mings’ position would not know what their endorsement criteria are.
Really a great interview, Pach. I wish the MSM would make even half that much effort to get at the truth.
Looks fine to me.
Thanks, Pach, for doing this work to push the national groups to think outside their “scorecard” boxes and hopefully put some focus on longer-term agendas which will lead to the kind of policy shifts that we all want, and that realitycheck (in a flawed and blunt way) also asserts.
Marriage is not the issue, progressive thought is. Equality, real human rights, fairness, the ability of anyone to “make it” and be true to themselves. If we move towards politicians that think that way, we will not have fiascoes like the Iraq war. The “religious” hatemongers like Joe Lieberman, Dobson, Bush, Etc… want entrenched power and are willing to crush innocent brown children to get it, just not white fetuses.
neuro: I think he says pretty clearly that their system favors incumbents.
Great work, Pach! I was about to use the apt phrase “feet to the fire,” but I see TeddySanFran beat me to it. I can only hope that this kind of solid, straightforward approach to issues that matter becomes a model for others in the blogosphere who aim to help us determine which candidates deserve our votes and support and which are wolves in sheeps’ clothing.
More power to you, and onward Roots…
This is another reason “Crashing the Gate” has to be done. It seems all institutions begin to deteriorate once established, and gentle or firm revolutions need to continue. Hopefully, this can be done by voting, etc., but if not, newly energized members need to take up the fight.
any way you know to make them change thier minds?
Whither bureaucracy (or, Why do organizations all seem to only end up working for themselves and not you)?
You might want to start with the criticisms of Max Weber’s idealized bureaucracy to understand why organizations (which are really nothing more than bureacracies), seemingly as a rule, devolve from their original service purpose to self service.
I think it applies.
Yeah, you can look it up on Wikipedia.
Great job Pach. I was thrilled to see a gay couple included in the first one of Lamont’s commericals. As far as the Human Right’s Chamapagne, it’s all about their parties from my experience.
I quit giving to the HRC once they built that monstrousity of a building as their new home. They could have rented something and spent our donations more wisely. So not suprised they have their heads up their collective a$$ on this one.
Always great commentary from you Pach!
Did you know Judge Walton ruled on the LIBBy request for reporter’s material? Went both ways, yes to some,no to others.
Way OT but I missed all the Boehner on Power from below and I want to drone on and long on this.
I have a little different take on the Constitutional issues for the Jefferson docs, more in line with lhp’s position I think, from what I have read so far, so fwiw.
As to the actual ability to go into the office and search – I do not think that there is any Constitutional prohibition on going into the office of a legislator, provided it is pursuant to a duly issued warrant and provided that the search/seizure is conducted in a manner that does not unduly interfere with the legislative activities. Since this happened on a Sat night, not in the middle of a day where Jefferson’s office was rushing a bill he was co-sponsoring to the floor, I don’t really see any Constitutional argument on the office being searched pursuant to warrant.
As to seizure of docs – that is where a possible rub may come in, but I don’t think we know enough to know if there will be an issue.
Here is the Section of the Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the sameSpeech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
In sum and summary, skipping the first sentence, this Section has been interpreted to balance the ability of the Executive and Judicial branches with respect to criminal conduct of a legislator, against protecting the activities of a legislator that are clearly a part of the legislative process, even if based on bad motives. So, for example, over time the privilege from Arrest while Congress is in session has been construed very broadly, such that where the arrest is based on criminal activity of any type, the Sup Ct has held the privilege fails. Not just for Treason, Felony, etc – but any criminal activities.
In the past and on at least the Arrest issues (also pursuant to warrant), the Clause has been interpreted broadly to not interfere with the ability to pursue criminal charges against a legislator. Couple that with the fact that there is nothing in the Clause precluding (warranted) search and seizure at all, as opposed to the specific reference to (warranted) Arrest.
To the extent you are talking about search only, done pursuant to a warrant and in a manner to minimize impact on normal legislative activities, I don’t believe there is much of a separation of powers issue – I like the Gov’s side of this argument. The bigger question seems to go to what was seized. The Section does extend protection to things a legislator does that are clearly a part of the legislative process.
Where you have public corruption cases, there is a line that is being walked. In general, while no one is supposed to be allowed to delve into the motivations and actions in respect of normal legislative activities (see U.S. v. Johnson, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....ge=183#183 Prosecution under a general criminal statute involving inquiry into the motives for and circumstances surrounding a congressional speech is barred even though the gravamen of the offense is the alleged conspiracy rather than the speech itself) this privilege is not extended to the actions of taking bribes to influence future legislative acts (see U.S. v. Brewster http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....;invol=501 Speech and Debate Clause does not protect all conduct relating to the legislative process, such as bribery charges that do not necessitate inquiry into legislative acts or motivation)
So IMO, it boils down to what was seized as to whether there is any implication of the Speech and Debate clause. Brewster seems fairly clear support that documents or evidence relating to making promise for future acts in exchange for a bribe are not privileged under the Clause and there is nothing that I see in the 4th or in the Speech and Debate Clause that extends privilege from search and seizure for evidence of a crime maintained in a Congressional office. Brewster:
Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator. It is not an “act resulting from the nature, and in the execution, of the office.” Nor is it a “thing said or done by him, as a representative, in the exercise of the functions of that office,” . . Nor is inquiry into a legislative act or the motivation for a legislative act necessary to a prosecution under this statute or this indictment. When a bribe is taken, it does not matter whether the promise for which the bribe was given was for the performance of a legislative act as here or, as in Johnson, for use of a Congressman’s influence with the Executive Branch. And an inquiry into the purpose of a bribe “does not draw in question the legislative acts of the defendant member of Congress or his motives for performing them.” 383 U.S., at 185 .
Less clear would be the right to search for or seize any documents or evidence relating to actual legislative acts taken and motivations behind such acts. For example, in Johnson several Congressmen were charged with conspiring and attempting to influence DOJ to drop pursuit of mail fraud indictments against an S & L. One of the things allegedly done in furtherance of that conspiracy was the making of a speech favorable to savings & loans on the floor by a member. The Court held that these actions – making of a speech on the floor – could not support a charge no matter what the motivation and held that charges and conviction relating to that speech, even if it was for pay, as a part of the “conspiracy” must be set aside [note: there was not a separate bribery charge for the speech in Johnson]. However, the Court said that the govt could retry the conspiracy charges as long as they expunged matters relating to the privileged matter – the motivations for the speech.
I know that seems semantics, but the cases seem to support being able to pursue evidence of taking bribes for future actions, bc the bribe is the activity charged. Where the action that is “actionable” is the speech itself, bc, for example, the speech itself is an element of the conspiracy you are charging (i.e., that the speech was the instrumentality of the improper activity of conspiracy to attempt to improperly influence DOJ) that is a different thing than arguing that someone has taken a bribe. So where an element is the actual legislative act (influencing DOJ not by holding a gun to the head of a DOJ atty or FBI investigator – but by making a speech on the floor) then that is not a proper subject of inquiry or charge and by extension it would seem to me to be not a proper subject for seizure or search of documents. However, where the element is another action – the acceptance of a bribe, then Brewster says pursuit of that crime is not prohibited by the Speech and Debate clause and I think by extension evidence of that is appropriate for search and seizure.
The illegal conduct is taking or agreeing to take money for a promise to act in a certain way. There is no need for the Government to show that appellee fulfilled the alleged illegal bargain; acceptance of the bribe is the violation of the statute, not performance of the illegal promise.
There may need to be in camera review by a court to determine that the docs fall within the right categories, but I have a feeling that Gov has this one covered – esp bc I think a Judge would be extra careful in issuance of a warrant to try to make sure this one is covered.
Another interesting article:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.c.....peech.html
I vaguely recall Human Rights Campaign making another vile and loathsome endorsement….
Ah, here we are: their disgusting endorsement in 1998 of Alfonse D’Amato over Chuck Schumer for New York Senator. (As much as I hate Schumer for his votes and statements abetting the incineration and torture of brown people in faraway lands, he’s been consistently good on GLBT issues, at least according to an AIDS activist friend of mine.)
HRC’s Dep Director for Electoral Activities doesn’t know how his own scorecard was scored? He doesn’t know whether the Alito votes were part of the calculations? He apparently hasn’t even looked at the speeches and actions of the challenger?
What is it about folks like this that have the rightwingnuts scared of “The Gay Agenda(tm)”? If this is how HRC leaders operate, methinks Falwell, Sheldon, and their fellow travellers can sleep easy.
Except for one thing: Pach and FDL are on the case.
Be afraid, r-wingers. Be very afraid.
libby’s team wins a discovery decision
http://www.editorandpublisher......1002576622
Thanks, Pach, great homework. It’s time for this lazy scorecard nonsense to end and for groups like HCR to stop giving legitimacy to people like Lieberman who don’t do shit for their cause. Lieberman is blasting it everywhere that he got this endorsement and people who only read the headlines are going to think it means something.
I also think it’s very important that you point out that while these national organizations are totally whored out, the local grassroots people know WTF is up and aren’t falling for it. It’s quite key that Ned is getting the support of people who really know what’s going on.
Pach, I reread the interview, and you are correct that he does say they favor incumbents. It sounds as if, in the case of an incumbent they generally like running for reelection, they base it all on one side of the equation–the incumbent’s votes on a narrow range of issues. This approach would seem to ignore the other side of the equation–the challenger’s positions on issues and whatever evidence there is of the strength of his support for those issues (evidence such as information gained from consulting the organization’s chapter in the state in question). Very short-sighted in my opinion. I didn’t see anything in the interview to indicate that Mings was even familiar with Lamont, much less his positions on GLBT issues.
Petterr, re: his knowledge of the scorecard. . I was wondering when someone would bring that up. It’s totally outrageous.
WASHINGTON (AP) 1:57 PM — “A federal judge on Friday ordered Time magazine to turn over documents for a former White House aide to use in his defense to perjury and other charges in the CIA leak case.”…
“Walton said Time magazine must provide Libby’s lawyers with drafts of first-person stories that reporter Matthew Cooper wrote about his conversations with Libby because the judge said he noticed inconsistencies between them.”…
“‘This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions,’ Walton wrote.
It is unclear from Walton’s ruling what those inconsistencies are.”
I’m interested also in the context of this interview, Pacha, because your subject seems so thoroughly unprepared for the questions. Has all of DeeCee gone Powerpoint? Is there no one who is able to think when confronted with questions?
Followup questions (with some depth required in the answers) were pretty unexpected by your interview subject. Sure, he’s a nice guy, I guess, but he has little respect for the interview and very little interest in its outcome, given the silence since it happened (and his commitment to you to get back with answers).
neuro: exactly. They have a formula. The formula has been designed by their bipartisan donors.
Does anyone else see connection here? What do you think would happen to HRC funding if they actually represented a progressive agenda, rather than one designed to sustain the status quo?
Is it just me, or does Ned have the opportunity to be the first truly Netroots candidate. The guy in TX (names escapes me) showed the power, but was too late.
I can’t wait to get Holy Joe out of the Senate, even my family, Zionists to the core are giving up on this guy.
Thanks Pach…I just sent them a letter saying I will NOT be giving them a donation this year or ever UNTIL, they stop endorcing fraudulent candidates like Rape Gurney Joe…..My partner and I have spoken to many of our friends and they will be writing similar letters. Let’s see what kind of response they give.
Bingo.
“reality”check #13:
Fortunately, some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Is there a term for trolls who insist that you have to focus on their issue exclusively, and that no one should try to deal with anything else until the “most important thing” is taken care of?
Teddy:
I got the call back after leaving a voice mail requesting an interview, during which I identified myself as a writer for FDL and wherein I described the subject matter in play.
It would seem that there is no way for a non- incumbent to get HRC’s endorsement. It is a closed system, Lamont has no scorecard.
I just wonder how low a score an encumbent would need to have before someone at HRC had the radical idea of listening to what the candidates actually say, maybe asking a few questions, then endorsing the best candidate.
Votes in Congress - while important - mean nothing if you don’t understand their context. Kerry’s whole “for it before I was against it” mess is a perfect example.
National groups like HRC, Sierra Club, or their rightwing counterparts want a simple “here’s why to vote for X” piece to hand to voters, and preferably want it to appear that there’s no “interpretation” going on. “Hey, I’m just looking at the data . . .”
Sorry, folks, that’s GIGO.
Some votes matter more than others (cloture, anyone?). Sometimes abstaining is because you were out of town on legitimate business, and sometimes it means you want to duck a hard choice.
Sometimes, it pays to think.
“Put the scorecard on the table, your hands in the air, and back away slowly, Mike!” And don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Way to stir up the nest, Pach!
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. %u2014 That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, %u2014 That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
>>>>>
Here comes the revolution!
I think there is a story here for the MSM, if they wanted to do a little reporting: talk to grassroots GLBT activists in Connecticut and find out how much opposition there is from them to the national HRC organization’s Loserman endorsement.
RW cole
I do know that NY DFA loves lamont. He was a big topic of conversation at the annual convention last month.
I believe some NY dems are planning to cross the border towork for him, since our senate and gov’s races are forgone conclusions.
I wonder how much the scorecard mentality grows out of conflict-avoidance, rather than just laziness. I’m sure laziness is part of it, since it means you don’t have to think hard about what the candidate has done, but I suspect a certain amount is that it avoids argument among board members (and with the general membership) because it looks objective and mathematical (even though in fact these scorecards are frequently slanted to make the “right” people look good.)
I’m cautiously optimistic that the attention CtG and FDL and others are focusing on this process will help highlight the fact that it favors incumbents who are “just good enough” rather than pushing continuous progress by threatening to give support to a challenger who promises to do better.
Peterr 55:
What does GIGO stand for?
Regarding letting strategy undercut what you stand for: John Dickerson was on NPR a little while ago today, talking about the “new Al Gore” who’s not afraid to speak his mind. Dickerson kept coming back to the meme, “but if he decides to make a run for the Presidency, he’s going to have to cut back on that, to make compromises, be careful what he says,” etc. etc.
Says who? Who is it that forces us to do anything? Who takes away our free will? This sounds more like a Democratic Consultant speaking the conventional wisdom that has given the Dems their amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory . . .
Given the context as explained (thanks, Pacha!) there’s really no excuse for this sorry performance. “Criteria for our scorecard? — I’ll get back to you on that!” just doesn’t cut it; it’s way outta line if he then didn’t get back to you….
OT– Tweety opens show with Bob Bennett and Plame…
Pach—- good going on the interviews!!!
Redshift:
The defense of the scorecard approach is that is standardizes an approach to endorsements creating a level playing feild for all politicians. It also spells out a way for favorably disposed pols to know what’s important to your constituency group.
I actually have no problem with scorecards. I do have a problem with an approach to making endorsements that is entirely formulaic, lacking any other context or strategic review. Politics is not reducible to a spreadhseet.
I deal with this in the business word all the time. By all means, measure what can be measured. Be sure to measure the right things. And then, after reviewing all the data, apply your judgment and considered wisdom.
The Plame case, not her in the flesh.
Redshift 53 — I call them “subterranean trolls,” others call them “stealth trolls.” Basically they say something to build up their liberal bona fides while they piss all over whatever someone else is trying to do. They hope to avoid the lable “troll” therein and the outright rejection of their ideas; it’s the latest rage in Heritage Foundation paid trolls over at the HuffPo.
GIGO: Garbage in, garbage out.
I’ve done stats and surveys stuff for a long time, and I absolutely hate what some non-math-sensitive folks do with numbers, just by being sloppy, lazy, and/or dishonest.
Pach — what a great post, I have already emailed the link to people from Maine to Texas. Thank you — it is the best argument yet to vote FOR Lamont, rather than AGAINST Lieberman.
Thank you.
Like Norml, once the desired goal is achieved, there can be no more fundraising - ergo, they will put themselves out of business.
I had thought that by the year 2000 our country would have recognized the futility and stupidity of our drug laws regarding maryjane, but No.
The fascist right wing agenda has been effective in many areas. Many young people have been programmed against legalizing/decriminalizing mj by churchy, right wing political orientation, rethug parents and other misbegotten influences.
It is sad, really - I mean about the young people being brainwashed this way. The right wing machine keeps pushing us back to darker times while they, concurrently, rob us blind.
neurophius 61 GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out, a computer programmer’s term for, basically, “you get what you pay for.”
Tweety, discussing Enron, mentioned Lay’s ties to bush. Interesting.
Nice interviews, Pach. This post will be forwarded to many of my friends in CT who are very active in and with the GLBT community. They will care and move on this.
I had thought that by the year 2000 our country would have recognized the futility and stupidity of our drug laws regarding maryjane, but No.
The reason being, most potsmokers I have know are nonconformists and creative thinkers. Those are not traits valued in the USofA.
I think too many organizations have gone from having zealots - who have their own set of baggage with which to contend - to, as they grow and prosper - “employees” who thrive on the fun of playing political insider. Scorecards are inherently a bad way to assess complicated scenarios like legislative compromises IMO, but more so when handled by a disengaged employee than a blood and guts zealot (but I do want to mention once again - zealots have their own problems).
FWIW
More OT
rwcole 128 below thread - right on target. There is no definable mission. “Stablizing what we destablized” is the best I have seen them come to any explanation. The very presence of a large invasion force of occupiers mostly deemed infidels and definitely deemed - again - occupiers, tends to be a destablizer all on its own. *s* Re: the Libby case though - I think we need to get you some tranquilfitzers. And it’s none of your business if he’s breathing hard - we aren’t under Clinton rules here. :b
BREAKING Capitol Hill Held Hostage by Italics. A spokesperson for the Italicized has issued a statement demanding that EPU be turned over by the radical FDL group that is harboring him. While the statement did not provide details, it is believe that EPU is wanted for fonting and actions out typeset. FDL has made a formal request that the sourcing of the statement be vetted and has all but accused the corporte media of inventing the statement. Says an anonymous FDL source: “It’s slanted.”
It’s not laziness. Any advocacy group fears being shut out. Incumbats ( misspelled it but liked it) are going to be the odds on winner in any election, let alone a primary. The only calculation that an advocacy group makes is a simple one - the incumbat is going to win, if I don’t support him/her/it, then they will cut me off, and I’ll lose my job, and I really like all the perqs of being part of the Washington professional advocacy class - it is not different than the CM and “journalists.”
neurophius @ 1:58 -
I agree. Jane’s work with the NOW/NARAL mess is example one of a successful netroots action that a savvy political reporter would be interested in, especially when it is followed by the work that Pach is starting here. To get it out, someone needs to get it to one of those reporters.
Froomkin is the kind of person I’m talking about here, and he’s open to getting tips from his readers. Sadly, he carefully confines his work to the White House beat. (Sad, in that it won’t help with this, but great because it keeps his work tightly focused and thus so blisteringly on target!)
Any CT folks, this sounds like it would be better aimed at a state or local person, rather than a national media type. Y’all know the players there - who needs to see this?
ROTFL, Mary with the breaking!
Mary at 39
Someone helpfully posted a link to the search warrant application on a previous thread. I clicked through and gave it a quick read.
The FBI was quite specific in what they were looking for (particular latters and travel documents) and why they expected to find it in the office. They had confidential witnesses who actually typed it on the computers and filed the ahrd copies. The know how the hard copy file was labelled.
This was no fishing expidition. Even with the large redactions, it is obvious that they had done everything they could short of actually removing the evidnce from the office and they solid reason to believe the evidence was stored on th eoffice and on the hard drives.
Since the narrative makes clear that one of the crimes they will be looking at is misuse of government property (the computers where used to do work for this illegal side business) the ONLY way to prove that is by proving that the side business information is on the hard drive and that the fax memory will show he used a gov’t fax to send/recieve documents for his side business.
The stuff they took is the actuall evidence of the crime.
Oh and the 45 day freeze is looking really more suspicious b/c they affidavit makes clear that they need to get the hard drives mirrored and cracked in the FBI computer lab.
SOOOO what’s on the hard drive that Bushco doesn’t want anybody to see for 45 days???
Kinda like Abu giving a (how many hours was that?) window for the shreddiing party when Plame hit the fan.
The warrant application specifically says they have concerns about tampering with the hard drives and that’s why they have to be seized.
My best friend works in computer foresics (he laughs at my total lack of tech skills) and if you know what you are doing you can fool all but the utmost expert, if you have the time to do it right.
So, I would worry about the computer equivlent of a shredding party during the cooling off period. After all, they must still be smarting that When Fitz seized the WH computers his technitions was able to recover the emails that had “not been archived in the normal way”
EPU 77 — that’s exactly what it looks like to me. That reality hit me smack in the face on the day of the Alito cloture vote when NARAL refused to pull their Chafee endorsement. It quite literally knocked the wind out of me.
Mary