Tweet
If “legal ethics” (ha!) prevent the White House attorneys from speaking with litigants in the DADT cases without their attorneys present, but the White House wants to talk legislative strategy with the Veal Pen LGBT groups (and need the two Servicemembers groups, the Palm Center and the Log Cabin Republicans at the meeting today for cover) why invite the White House attorneys at all?
Today, Gibbsy is answering questions in his usually oblique way, without ever saying whether the president plans to use his stop/loss authority to halt the discharges under DADT.
Why not have a candid, freewheeling conversation with all the LGBT issues out on the table? . . .
Surely this meeting could be more constructive, and could cover more ground more quickly, if the White House lawyers and their precious ethics rules were excluded. After all, there’s nothing that disallows two parties to a lawsuit from having a direct conversation. And if the lawyers aren’t present, more could be accomplished in a discussion of upcoming legislative strategy anyway. Perhaps there could even be some meeting of the minds over the lawsuit itself!
Unless, of course, the White House strategists are using their lawyers as a shield to prevent their pet LGBT activists from being harassed by the people who brought the successful DADT lawsuit against the government. That couldn’t happen, could it?
Could it?
UPDATE: Here’s the list of who’s at the meeting from Kerry Eleveld at the Advocate. You are reading her stuff every day, aren’t you?
The Advocate has obtained a copy of an e-mail sent by Brian Bond, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and the de facto LGBT liaison, to the meeting’s participants, who include: Allison Herwitt and Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign; Shane Larson of the Stonewall Democrats; Winnie Stachelberg of the Center for American Progress; Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network; R. Clarke Cooper of the Log Cabin Republicans; Alex Nicholson and Jarrod Chlapowski of Servicemembers United; Nathaniel Frank, DADT expert, formerly of the Palm Center; and Jim Kessler of the Third Way.
UPDATE2, also from Kerry, of course:
President Barack Obama dropped by a White House meeting Tuesday of pro-repeal advocates who were convened to discuss the prospects of moving “don’t ask don’t tell” repeal before the end of the year.
“The President stopped by to directly convey to the participants his personal commitment on this issue,” said a White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
The official declined to give any further details on the duration of the president’s stay or the content of the meeting, but an email earlier in the day indicated participants would be focused soley on strategizing about passing legislation during the lame duck session.
Fierce!
Advocacy!
22 Comments
I think this is a new policy — I mean, BP had litigation before the White House, as did the auto companies and every single bank. I don’t remember there being such strict rules, promulgated publicly, about not being able to discuss the case.
Of course, the Big Boys might have been permitted to bring their own attorneys. I’m sure Gay Inc didn’t insist on bring their own lawyers — after all, they are among friends at the White House! Right?
Right?
Actually, if you read the article closely, there is no indication WH counsel or WH lawyers will be present or are involved at all. The only real description of WH attendees is Messina, Jarrett, Schiliro and Tchen.
The problem here is that Gay Inc is treating an adversarial White House as an ally, therefore leading up to problems like this one. By imposing a gag rule (as they surely shall do) on the meeting, the White House has protected the HRC and Third Way from criticism from the other groups after the meeting.
First rule of Gay Inc: don’t talk about Gay Inc.
So the plot thickens: why even talk about what they can’t talk about if there are no actual WH counsel present? This looks even more like an agenda- and post-presser-limiting pre-emption to me now.
of course it could teddy. the wh is still stinging from the uproar over the wh’s lack of action and the uproar from the wh supported doj fight to declare an unconstitutional law constitutional and has decided on a ‘don’t ask don’t talk’ format.
recommended
DADT = Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Talk!
I love it.
Obviously the WH is sweating bullets over the mess they have created and I love it. The veal pen can sweat with them.
Is, Gay, Inc., NYSE or over-the-counter? What’s it trading for these days?
Yeah, it could get rather tense in that little WH office, with Nathaniel Frank facing off against the horrid quisling Solmonese. Also, the two groups with Servicemembers in their name have little use for HRC as well. Clearly, the real activists (and LCR as well) are being used to give Joe & HRC some cover.
Joe wrote an ‘open letter’ to the White House (something you never do in DC unless you are either really pissed at the person or have been given permission to write them an open letter) asking the president (who HRC has said all along ‘has a plan’ for repeal of DADT, ha!) to issue a stop/loss order.
Which pretty much indicates that the WH plans a stop/loss order and is willing to give Joe credit for it. “See, the WH listened to US!”
ha!
the whole white house reaction to DADT makes me feel as if i had better go wash my hands. or maybe take a shower. I just feel dirtied by people I supported and worked for.
The first rule of Veal Pen: don’t talk about Veal Pen.
Really? The White House said not long ago they can’t do that. If they do, now, issue a stop loss order, how do they explain waiting all this time? How do they explain allowing the total clusterfuck time period between Phillips’ injunction and the 9th Circuit stay? I find it hard to believe they would really issue a stop loss now, it would prove positive how craven and stupid they have been.
I’m not getting all the facts here, sorry.
So are the lawyers responsible at that meeting or no? If they’re not, did the admonition stand?
If they are there, then I’ll agree, it’s a stifling maneuver.
If they are not there, it is a self-stifling maneuver on the part of the participants.
Either result is bullshit, just want to be clear on the facts.
Teddy, what do you think of the organization Equality California?
Why, they were convinced by Joe Solmonese’s superior logic and convincing arguments, bmaz! Not by those awful GetEQUAL protesters.
They are the people who lost the Prop 8 election.
I much prefer Courage Campaign.
I don’t think we know all the facts yet.
It’ll be fascinating to hear what the attendees have to say. Especially since the attendees span the spectrum in terms of support of this White House.
Note update2 at the end of the post:
UPDATE2, also from Kerry, of course:
President Barack Obama dropped by a White House meeting Tuesday of pro-repeal advocates who were convened to discuss the prospects of moving “don’t ask don’t tell” repeal before the end of the year.
“The President stopped by to directly convey to the participants his personal commitment on this issue,” said a White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
The official declined to give any further details on the duration of the president’s stay or the content of the meeting, but an email earlier in the day indicated participants would be focused soley on strategizing about passing legislation during the lame duck session.
Fierce!
Advocacy!
It’s all so much easier than any of this, and it’s that fact which pisses me off so.
As Commander in Chief, Obama could simply direct the Joint Chiefs to cease enforcing DADT until such time as Congress revisits the issue, in view of the court’s finding that the law is unconstitutional. And as leader of the Democratic Party, he could direct Pelosi and Reid to introduce legislation ending the policy.
This coddling of the DOD is such utter bullshit – and now that we’re all seeing right through it, the WH is at a total loss as to how to distract us next.
“dropped by”…typically casual Obama…Maybe if he actually attended a meeting it would mean something.