The Perversion of Democracy Must Not Be Tolerated
By The Directors Posted in Congress — Comments (49) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This post has a simple premise: Mike Rogers (the liberal blogger, not the Congressman) has the legal right to "out" any gay politician he wants to "out." He does not, however, have the legal right to extort a gay politician, especially when the desired payoff is a vote from that politican. Extortion is a felony, and when the targets of extortion are politicians, the entire system is corrupted in a vile and unacceptable way. 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) states, "Whoever, with the intent to extort from any person . . . any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate . . . commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Arguably, Mike Rogers extorted Larry Craig by threatening to "out" him if he did not vote against the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. For this, he deserves the condemnation of all morally responsible citizens of this country and, at least, an investigation by the federal government to look for possible criminal wrongdoing.
The facts of Mike Rogers' scheme were covered here at RedState when Mr. Rogers "outed" Senator Craig three weeks before the 2006 elections. At the time, Senator Craig denied Mike Rogers' allegations, and no one had any reason to believe Rogers over Craig. The story blew over. In light of recent events, it appears that Mike Rogers really did have the goods on Craig, to a remarkably specific extent (to wit, that he engaged in gay sexual acts in public restrooms), which makes his actions a very serious matter indeed. While Senator Craig deserves opprobrium for placing himself in a position to be extorted, all believers in clean representative democracy should shudder at the thought of a private citizen influencing the votes of a United States Senator through extortion. Senator Craig has justly resigned. Now we should examine whether Mike Rogers ran afoul of 18 U.S.C. § 875(d). Our system of representative democracy cannot countenance such brazen attempts to corrupt legislators. Make no mistake: Mike Rogers' attempt to coerce Larry Craig into a specific vote by threatening to publicly damage his reputation was no more defensible or tolerable than a quid pro quo involving votes traded for cash.
Mike Rogers' justification for his actions is logically ridiculous: a gay person does not automatically become a hypocrite by opposing gay marriage any more than a black person becomes a hypocrite by opposing affirmative action. But even if one accepts Mike Rogers' argument that Larry Craig was a hypocrite and deserved to be outed, the proper response would have been simply to out him, not to attempt to corruptly change his votes by threatening to reveal the information unless he complied.
Why not contact your local FBI field office and ask them if publicly threatening to out a United States Senator if he fails to vote in a particular way is a crime? The evidence of the threat is here (we have screenshots), and Rogers apparently carried through with his threat on the Ed Schulz show on October 17, 2006.
Our liberal friends are trying to pretend that everything is fair game in the name of EXPOSING HYPOCRISY!!!, but corruption of the functions of government must not be allowed to stand. Through his repeated actions and threats using the private activities of staffers and politicians as ammunition against them, Mike Rogers engages in a campaign of public shaming that perverts everything good and tolerant about the progressive views he claims to espouse. He long ago crossed all lines of basic respect for human beings who have the right to believe and vote as they wish, regardless of their individual persuasion. In this case, we suspect his activity crossed the line to something worse: the perversion of our democracy.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | *Do* Tell. — Comments (3) »
The Perversion of Democracy Must Not Be Tolerated 49 Comments (0 topical, 49 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
Much appreciated. BTW, just saw your new signature line. Awesome. Of course, I voted GWB in 2000, but we agree on the second.
I've been saying this for the past year to anyone who will listen. This scumbag has also been "outing" Republican staffers who are gay and who work for conservatives--using the same ridiculous rationale. It's unbelievable to me that trying to make a living in Washington requires some kind of sexual litmus test. And BTW, are there not any gay staffers who are working for Blue Dogs or other conservative Democrats who don't support gay issues? Why not take this to the next outrageous level and "out" gay staffers who are working for straight Members? Both are equally ludicrous, but under this dolt's argument, it would stand to reason that those will be his next steps.
hchilsolm
You will never get a cease fire until you fight back. This includes outing hypocritical Democrats who claim to have no problem with gays but who then lead closeted lives and are married to someone of the opposite sex. This includes *cough,cough* certain Democrats running for president.
Republicans always take the high road, and then they always get burned.
You need to stop this shtick now. It's getting old. Unless you've solid proof of what you are charging, not one more byte should be spent on it at this site.
We do *not* have any interest in seeing any visual evidence you may have. At *all*.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
I'll have to form a company called "Capitol Hill Girls Gone Wild" then and sell it on late nite infomercials.
If, say, Salma Hayek were running for president, and she had a 'closeted life', I'd personally be very interested -- nay, INSISTENT -- in examining any visual or photographic evidence there was.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I think most people read that a little differently.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
drop this stuff?...Or do you have a problem?
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
that is obsessed with this. Pretty odd, if you think about some of your posts..
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
You need, at the very least, the statement of someone who claims to have witnessed what you are speaking of firsthand, or participated in it. Absent that, you need photographic evidence (again, do *not* post it on the site, or email it to any of us). Absent that, you need to drop it.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
Morris defined the foul lines in January, 1998, when he said, on KABC talk radio, “What I’m about to say isn’t necessarily a fact. . . . But let’s assume, O.K., that his [Bill Clinton’s] sexual relationship with Hillary is not all it’s supposed to be. Let’s assume that some of the allegations about Hillary sometimes not necessarily being into regular sex with men might be true.”
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/04/050704ta_talk_remnick
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
That doesn't NECESSARILY mean anything. And I didn't say that it did. I made no further accusations. I just put that out there for other people to read and digest.
Of course, if I were writing an test question along the lines of, "Oprah is to Obama as Ellen is to Hillary" there would probably be some very interesting answers. :-)
And there will not be replies. Seriously, this is the last warning.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
It'll be me.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
There is a simple solution to this. If you don't want your sexual preferences to be used as blackmail against you, don't hide who you are. Eventually someone is going to find out, and your secret will no longer be secret. Lets just hope only Americans are yanking the chains of our closeted congress members (Iran, Russia, China would be much worse).
Don't get me wrong I do not advocate blackmail against anyone it is against the law after all. In fact I say throw the book at anyone who does.
This brings to light the true problems with people who hide the fact that they are homosexual and why they are a threat to our democracy. If they cannot be honest with themselves and their constituents how are they to remain honest when someone who does not have our best interests at heart finds out about their nasty little secret.
And that little message needs to be communicated just as clearly to a certain leader of the Democratic presidential primary.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
... especially Republican politicians.
It's not fair, but it's a fact of life. If there's some personal info you're embarrassed about, and you're not ready to deal with it coming out, politics is a very dumb career choice.
That is just a fact of life. Are you proud of everything you've ever done in your entire life? Does your family and everybody else know about everything you've ever done in your entire life? I didn't think so. People start keeping secrets at around age 2 and continue to do so until the day they die. It is human nature.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I think you missed my point entirely in fact id say the secret is not the problem its how far some will go to keep those secrets. When you are a public figure you are held to a higher standard mainly because you are able to affect greater change because of the position you are in. This should imply a certain level of transparency with your constituents. That is not to say you are not allowed to have your secrets, but as a politician you have to be willing to risk that any secret you have may one day be public knowledge. Good or bad, Better or Worse this is the way it is, and the way it has to be in the society in which we live.
I have nothing against a single gay politician who keeps his homosexual lifestyle to himself. This while depending how "in the closet" the politician is can still be harmful to us, but is just the lie of omission. My main concern is gay politicians who either have a wife and or girlfriend this is the lie that destroys the politicians reputation (foreign and domestic), and the public trust. For that reason this lie is much easier to exploit by evil doers (by this i mean anyone willing to blackmail to achieve their goals: China, Iran, North Korea, Al Queda, Mafia, Opposing Political party, etc). This is not to say the first situation will not end up with the same outcome, or that this is the only possible outcome for either situation, but It's much easier to come clean, and avoid the blackmail altogether when the foundation of your public life is not built on said lie.
I keep secrets sure. Some id prefer never see the light of day. I also do not hold public office, but if I were to run for public office id first sit down and make sure I was willing to accept that chances are good that some if not all your secrets will be unveiled to the world for all to see. If I could not accept this possible outcome I would be a perfect target for blackmail and therefore unsuitable for the job.
This brings to light the true problems with people who hide the fact that they are homosexual and why they are a threat to our democracy. If they cannot be honest with themselves and their constituents how are they to remain honest when someone who does not have our best interests at heart finds out about their nasty little secret.
Sounds to me like you want full disclosure of everything anyone does or has ever done (or maybe this is just limited to sexual behavior for some reason?) Now you are changing your argument.
That is not to say you are not allowed to have your secrets, but as a politician you have to be willing to risk that any secret you have may one day be public knowledge.
Well, duh. Everyone realizes there is a chance that their secrets will be exposed. That doesn't mean they are going to be indifferent about them being exposed. Politicians are no different.
My main concern is gay politicians who either have a wife and or girlfriend this is the lie that destroys the politicians reputation (foreign and domestic), and the public trust.
And how does it do that, exactly? This isn't corruption here. He didn't abuse his office to extort cash and favors in exchange for votes. That would be an abuse of the public trust. He didn't abuse his office at all.
His relationship with his spouse is a personal matter. I don't know all the details of their relationship and it's not really any of my business anyway. Anyway, just because a guy may have tastes that aren't satisfied by his spouse doesn't mean that marriage is a sham, you know. I would have thought that was obvious.
For that reason this lie is much easier to exploit by evil doers (by this i mean anyone willing to blackmail to achieve their goals: China, Iran, North Korea, Al Queda, Mafia, Opposing Political party, etc).
Any kind of secret someone wants to protect can be exploited. And everybody has secrets. So there's plenty of material out there. Anyway, if someone is corrupt, they are corrupt. What difference does it make if it's blackmail or bribery that gets them to go over to the other side? What difference does it make what the blackmailers are trying to use against the target? There's nothing in the blackmailer's handbook that says all blackmail must be about gay sex, or even sex in general.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Can a lawywer tell me whether what he is doing is illegal.
Two lawyers and a law school student helped write this post. We think this should be looked into by the proper authorities.
Someone in the other thread brought up the question of whether Craig's vote was a "thing of value" under the statute. Are there references to cases where this was addressed? It seems that "thing of value" could be interpreted in many different ways.
That a favorable vote from a United States Senator is a "thing of value," then you need to explain to me just why all those lobbyists in Washington, DC exist.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
My opinion is not germane to the question of whether it is a "thing of value" under the law. I was hoping that someone could point me in the right direction, since I have not, as of yet, found these references for myself.
It's an ugly high road, but we need to go after this guy (it seems like many gay Republicans are getting targeted lately; is Rogers the only one?).
I'm no legal expert, but exposing this sleaze bag in a suit would generate popular support.
Nail'em,
-Drew Veeneman
Number 43:
So tell me, is it illegal?
this was on Hannity last night...he actually has said that he has more, bigtime public officials that he is going to out in the near future....this guy is scum, period.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln