Senate Democrats Bankroll Extortion
They Deserve to Win, Right?
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2006 — Comments (40) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Just as a refresher, the breaking Larry Craig story is not a story about sex, or sexuality, or hypocrisy, it's about criminal extortion. Several months ago, Mike Rogers threatened to out an unnamed United States Senator if he voted to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. As we have covered here and here, this is a textbook case of extortion - seeking to obtain a "thing of value" (in this case, an important Senate vote) by threat to injure the reputation of another. When Mike Rogers carried through with this threat, he indicated that he was not merely bluffing; he was actually engaged in criminal extortion. Several right-leaning blogs have sought to tie this to Democrats by virtue of the recommended diary at Kos - it's important, however, to remember that Senate Democrats are tied in to this in a much more direct fashion - many of them bankrolled the Ed Schultz show, which provided the forum for Rogers to act on his extortionary threat.
Loads of evidence below the fold...
It is important to recognize at the outset that Schultz's show has been bought out by Clear Channel radio in the interim, but he continues to act as a de facto mouthpiece of the Democratic leadership. Check out his show lineup currently on the site, which includes Nick Lampson, Byron Dorgan, Jane Harman, and others. The synergy between Ed Schultz and Congressional Democrats goes back to the very inception of the show, however.
Newsmax, from Jan. 29, 2005:
While the media continue their quest to "expose" conservative pundits on the Bush administration payroll, reporters don't seem to have any qualms about the fact that the nation's top elected Democrats helped bankroll liberal commentators on Air America and North Dakota talker Ed Schultz.
Unlike the Armstrong Williams case, there's been no outrage over the fact that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and Debbie Stabenow lined up $1.8 million in funding for Democracy Radio, which underwrote Mr. Schultz's show.
According to the Washington Post, Democracy Radio is "a non-profit organization" run by Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, "with a board composed of three Clinton administration veterans."
Last year, Sen. Mary Landrieu hosted a fund-raiser for Athans' operation at her Washington, D.C., home, which served as a kind of coming-out party for Schultz and Air America host Randi Rhodes. Clinton, Daschle and 20 other Democrat senators were on hand to encourage party fat cats to open their wallets.
...
Mr. Schultz decided to express his gratitude financially, contributing $2,000 apiece to Democrats Daschle and Sen. Byron Dorgan in last year's campaign.
The Schultz donations can be found here.
On the marriage of Democracy Radio CEO Athans to Stabenow:
Tom Athans was the consummate political staffer in Michigan, knowing everybody and everything about the state's Democratic politics. He knew Debbie Stabenow for years and worked for her briefly in 2000. Concerned about what he saw as a dominance of conservative voices in talk radio, he moved to Washington in 2002 to start up the nonprofit Democracy Radio, launching talk-radio hosts like Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller. Last year, he says, he concluded that for progressive radio to have staying power it had to be viable commercially as well as politically. He joined forces with Air America Radio and now runs the company's Washington office.
When he arrived in Washington, a divorced man in his early forties in a new city, he was grateful when Stabenow suggested dinner. Neither had romance in mind-they had known each other forever, and he was 11 years her junior. But they had such a good time that he found himself wondering how to ask a senator on a date. He took her to a karaoke bar in Detroit's Greektown, a hangout for gospel and church singers. That Christmas he watched her family open presents for three hours before proposing in front of the whole gang, including her mom. They wed on Valentine's Day weekend. "At our age," says Athans, "you know when something is right, and you don't hesitate."
In Nov. of 2005, the NY Daily News reported on the role of Athans and Stabenow in bringing Schultz into the Air America fold:
Tom Athans, husband of U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and founder of the progressive talk company Democracy Radio, has joined Air America as executive vice president in charge of its new syndication division.
At Democracy Radio, Athans developed and produced the Ed Schultz show, the most successful progressive talk program. This led to some speculation yesterday that Schultz could come to Air America.
And he did indeed.
The National Journal reported on February 26, 2005 about the role Harry Reid played in helping to finance Democracy Radio:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also loves the
format; he's been the guest of Franken and liberal talk-show
host Ed Schultz, whose show is syndicated by Jones Radio
Network. Reid has encouraged his colleagues to follow suit.
Schultz's show got off the ground with $1.8 million from the
Washington nonprofit Democracy Radio, which is run by Tom
Athans, the husband of Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich."There's an obvious untapped market, and Senator Reid is
anxious to exploit that to the extent possible," said Jim
Manley, staff director of Reid's newly revamped Senate
Democratic Communications Center.
As Newsmax notes:
So it was just a coincidence that when his show debuted in February, Daschle, Clinton and Dorgan were his first on-air guests.
If the current lineup is any indication, Schultz continues to show his gratitude to the Congressional Democrats who gave him his job, and lays out the welcome mat to any who wish to appear. Equally interesting, Senate Democrats are all too eager to accept invitations to appear on Schultz's show, and share the microphone with a person who knowingly provided a forum for Mike Rogers to act on his extortionary threat.
This is not just the existence of a diary on Kos - the Congressional Democratic leadership is responsible for Ed Schultz's show, and appear on it frequently - they need to answer whether they support the use of criminal extortion in order to win elections.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Bam! Slap! Crash! Pow! — Comments (20) »
Senate Democrats Bankroll Extortion 40 Comments (0 topical, 40 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Isn't this kind of thing illegal? Is the FBI aware of it?
How can you extort someone without actually naming them? Also is threatening to out someone extortion?
Also I fail to see how Congressional Democrats getting people to fund a Progressive organization is, in any way, comparable to our elected Administration hiring people to act as news analysts with the underlying agenda of promoting the administration's views.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Rogers previously said he had contacted the US Senator and told him that should he vote for Alito, Rogers would out the Senator.
The Senator voted for Alito and Rogers outed him.
That is blackmail.
It isn't blackmail but it could be extortion.
I don't see how Mr. Craig could press charges though. He would be saying , in essence, that his homosexuality is an embarassment.
Also does extortion apply in cases in which the alleged extorter receives no direct benefit?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
A Senate vote is pretty clearly a "thing of value," as zillions of lobbyists will tell you.
Also, homosexuality can be a source of embarrassment, as dozens of cases will attest.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
So you're saying that the thing of value can be a thing of value to ANYONE?
That is a very broad interpretation of extortion, Leon.
If someone were to threaten a politician with publishing a confidential converstaion they had with the politician if they didn't vote the way they promised, would that be extortion?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
If that's an overbroad interpretation, why is the statute careful to point out that seeking "things of value" from judges and administrative officers is punishable by a greater offense? It's not because judges and administrators have more money, it's because the assumption is that those people will be extorted to decide things in a certain way - and thus provide a "thing of value."
If the private conversation was injurious to the reputation of the person in question, then yes, that's extortion.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
is that a judge or administrative officer would be providing something of DIRECT value to the extorter. A favorable ruling on case the extorter is in for instance.
Mr. Rogers is not receiving any direct value from the case. You are suggesting that receiving a political favorable vote is of direct value to Mr. Rogers. I think that is a pretty broad definition of direct value.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I guess that would be a pretty good interpretation for people who want to get into the extortion-for-hire or blackmail-for-hire business. After all, the victim of the extortion isn't giving you anything of value, they are giving it to somebody else (your client). So how can you get into any trouble?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
That sort of defense will get you a very long prison sentence.
First off you are getting something of value from the extortion. You are getting paid by someone to extort a person.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
IT's not "thing of direct value to extortioner" it's "thing of value." By this logic, if someone extorted a judge to rule on behalf of, say, their brother, it wouldn't be extortion. After all, you get no direct benefit. The more direct analogy would be suggesting that extortion is not possible in the case of a judge presiding over a class action suit of which you are one of 1,000 members.
The statute makes clear (and this should be obvious) that extortion in order to influence government policy is more serious than extortion for pure pecuniary gain. Again, this should be blindingly obious.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
If someone were to threaten a politician with publishing a confidential converstaion they had with the politician if they didn't vote the way they promised, would that be extortion?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Well that is a pretty broad definition and could certainly make the world of politics a very dangerous place, criminally speaking.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
If you have a conversation with someone in confidence, you are certainly at liberty to reveal that conversation later. You can even reveal it in retaliation for a "bad" vote. What you can't do is threaten to reveal that conversation, and agree to not reveal it only if the person you are threatening gives you a quid pro quo consideration, that's extortion. It's not really broad at all. That's just definitionally what extortion is.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
I see your reasoning. I'm not sure if this really applies still but I can see what you're saying.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Let me pause for a moment to revel in this comment.
Okay, moving on - why would this not apply? Rogers says, "I have information that is damaging to your reputation. Unless you vote against the confirmation of Samuel Alito, I will release it to the news media." That's pretty much exactly following the blueprint.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
First off he doesn't name Craig in his threat. It's an open ended threat. Perhaps he made direct communications with Craig, as Erick alluded to. If that is the case that would be more damaging. But the initial claim is too broad, on its own, to be considered extortion.
Secondly since Craig is a public figure the standards for this sort of thing are a bit higher. If it was common knowledge inside the beltway but simply not reported upon, it is questionable that he is doing anything that is really damaging his reputation.
But I don't think it much matters because I don't think that Craig will press charges on Rogers.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
In the initial threat that he actually mailed the letter to the Senator. I'm operating on the assumption that he was telling the truth. If not, then I agree that there's no extortion here.
P.S. The Federal government is perfectly capable of prosecuting crime - especially with this much public evidence - without the consent of the victim. They do it all the time.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Dangerous for people who go around extorting things out of people, anyway. I know I'm safe on that count. If you have damaging information you want to release, release it. If you don't want to release it, don't release it. The problem occurs when you demand they do something for you in exchange for withholding the information.
And yes, voting the way you want them to vote IS getting something of value. That is why most people participate in politics and give money to campaigns after all. Not to mention why liberal millionaires are willing to spend substantial chunks of their fortune buying their Senate seats.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
did you? A threatens B if B doesn't do something that benefits C through Z and its not extortion? This is a whole new level of Flyerhawk Signature Collection Disingenuity. Congratulations.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
What you are trying to say here.
If A receives no gain whatsoever from the threat I don't think it is extortion.
You can make the argument that Rogers is receiving a gain but I disagree.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
if he could brag to the others in his party that he was the one to sink a supreme court nominee that would raise his prestige which would lead to more lucrative book sells, speaking fees etc.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Even if he isn't gay, it can still harm his reputation. Second, even if he was, and even if he didn't have a problem with it, it would still cause harm his reputation.
The evidence of the potential harm to his reputation is the fact that the extorting party used it as leverage in an attempt to extract things of value in the first place. If it was a completely harmless revelation, that wouldn't really jive with the "vote this way or else" component, now would it?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
There is no there there. Ken Mehlman is Gay. Larry Craig is Gay. There is no extortion. There is no law being broken (see Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Doolittle, Pombo et al.)
Encourage them to show their true colors.
Some one else will come along and BLAM! you in a second, but I'll provide the tag line something witty like "Hey Mouse, say cheese"
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats
TO have enemies so incapable of thinking. If Craig really is gay, the extortion case is more compelling, not less. The whole point of extortion is that you threaten to reveal something which is (presumably) true about the other person, dolt.
I'd love to hear what Jack Abramoff has to do with this situation, at all. In fact, I'd love to hear it so much, that I'm requesting that you submit a 500-word essay explaining the connection to the contact form. In order to encourage you to finish this expeditiously, I'm turning off your commenting privileges, so you won't be distracted by the temptation to post here.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Threatening to out somebody for voting in favor of Alito is ridiculous, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's illegal.
But connecting what Mike Rogers did back to Senate Democrats, through somebody's radio show, amounts to such a guilt-by-association stretch that it just doesn't pass the giggle test. If Mike Rogers outed somebody on C-SPAN, would you blame the cable & satellite industry for supporting the channel?
If Senate Dems steered taxpayer money toward the radio station, the comparison to Armstrong Williams would be a fair one - but it would still have nothing to do with Mike Rogers' actions.
So if the Democrats had steered public funding toward this, you'd be fine with holding them accountable, but not if they gave out of their own pocket???
Second, there's a big difference between Schultz and C-Span - if C-SPAN specifically asked this guy on in order to provide him a forum to commit a felony, then I'd be after whoever runs C-SPAN, yes. That is what Schultz did. Go look at his webpage now, he's bragging about it.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Are you suggesting that Senate Dems gave their money to Schultz, anticipating that some a--hole was going to appear on the show and "out" one of their colleagues? Because that seems to be where your logic is heading, and I find it astounding.
If I could swallow such an assertion, then yes, I'd have a problem with them using even their own money to participate in such an act. I don't know if it would be illegal, but certainly inappropriate.
But in the meantime, I stand by my point that Senators spending their own money for propaganda is drastically different from the White House allegedly spending taxpayer money for propaganda.
Having checked out Schultz's site, I think he is wrong for encouraging what Rogers did, but I don't think he's a criminal. But perhaps I take that First Amendment thing a little too seriously.
This is a different kind of wow from the one I just had in response to flyerhawk.
In the first place, I never suggested that the Democrats funded Schultz so that he would do this, I pointed out that the Democrats have funded Schultz, and now he has done it, therefore they ought to at least weigh in on whether this is what they wanted their money spent on. If they come out and say, "What a creep that Ed Schultz is! I'll never appear on his show again!" Then all is well in Leon-land. Of course, it seems that Byron Dorgan is on today's show, so I doubt that's actually happening.
But in the meantime, I stand by my point that Senators spending their own money for propaganda is drastically different from the White House allegedly spending taxpayer money for propaganda.
Yes, it is different. I'll concede that point. However, it's not the point I was making in the post.
Having checked out Schultz's site, I think he is wrong for encouraging what Rogers did, but I don't think he's a criminal. But perhaps I take that First Amendment thing a little too seriously.
I'm assuming here that you're just totally ignorant of precedent, stretching back to the founding, which holds that the First Amendment does not protect blackmail, extortion, defamation, libel, false advertising, or any number of other things, and that you're arguing for some bizarre reason that it should.
Like I said - yesterday, I think a poll of the U.S. Population would have revealed that over 95% of people would universally condemn extortion as illegal and immoral. Now that a Democrat has done it to a Republican in an election season, that number has dropped precipitously.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Are you suggesting that Schultz could be culpable in potential extortion charges? I don't think you meant that but that is how it reads.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Sorry if I gave that impression. I have no idea what accessory-after-the-fact liability that he might have, but I'm certain that this would not be prosecuted.
Regardless, the First Amdendment is irrelevant to the legal issues at hand, however they are analyzed, as the First Amendment does not protect extortion.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
I'm assuming here that you're just totally ignorant of precedent, stretching back to the founding, which holds that the First Amendment does not protect blackmail, extortion, defamation, libel, false advertising, or any number of other things, and that you're arguing for some bizarre reason that it should.
I completely agree there are "exceptions" to the First Amendment, and as I clearly said before, I wouldn't be surprised if what Rogers did was illegal. But Schultz is a different story, and I thought it was obvious that that's who I was talking about as far as the First Amendment goes. Either I wasn't clear enough, or you're trying to be cute.
If your only point was that Senate Dems shouldn't continue to appear on an offensive left-wing radio show like Schultz's, fair enough. Whether their colleagues on the other side of the aisle were willing to hold themselves to the same standard, and not appear on offensive right-wing radio shows, would be my only question.
Apologies for misconstruing your comment.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
in the self-styled party of tolerance and enlightenment.
There was the Mary Cheney episode in 2004.
And then this theme surfaced in the Max Baucus reelection campaign of 2002:
The 2002 Montana elections gained a spot on the national radar when Baucus' opponent, state senator Mike Taylor accused Baucus of having implied that Taylor was a gay hairdresser in a campaign ad. The ad alleged that Taylor had embezzled funds from the cosmetology school he once owned while showing footage from the early 80s of Taylor massaging another man's face while wearing a tight suit with an open shirt. The commercial was featured on Comedy Central's The Daily Show along with interviews with the major third party candidates for Baucus' seat. Taylor dropped out of the race.
Ed's not smart enough to orchestrate things for himself, and the gay culture is completely beyond his ken. The Senate Dems' fingers are all over this.
At the very least, they knew about it, happily waiting with gleeful anticipation.
To think that Democrats will threaten people to get what they want on the courts is as surprising as finding out that Bill Gates made money last year.
BTW, restocking the judiciary with people think that the Constitution means what the Constitution says should motivate Republicans to (a) donate to their favorite candidates, (b) work the phonebanks or go doorknocking & (c) vote for the GOP candidates.