White House meeting to discuss legislative repeal of DADT in 2010.

[pnwmom]

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/10/26/White_House_To_Hold_DADT_Meeting/

A White House official tells The Advocate that pro-repeal groups are scheduled to meet Tuesday with White House officials to discuss the path forward on repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” during the lame-duck session following the midterm election.

“The White House is meeting with several interested parties to discuss the legislative repeal of ‘don't ask, don't tell.’ The meeting will concern the work that remains to be done to ensure congressional action on this issue this year,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The official declined to name any participants of the meeting, but sources tell The Advocate that senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina are expected to be present.

UPDATE: 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.

SNIP

[Lyric]

1. If Joe wants to talk to Obama, he can do so.

If he and his humble-pie brethren want to discuss the compromises that they're willing to make with their OWN rights, then so be it. But don't think for a moment that they're speaking for all of us (or even most of us). Joe Solmonese and his ilk speak for me (and people like me) about as accurately as Blanche Lincoln speaks for DU. Unless they come away from that meeting with something more significant that the usual "Be Good Little Gays And Hush" platitudes, I have zero use for any of them.

[pnwmom]

2. The point is to discuss how to repeal DADT in 2010.

Plenty of time to criticize them later, if they fail.

[no limit]

5. In case you haven't noticed they already failed

and to pretend that suddenly the republicans will be onboard after the elections is utter bullshit.

[pnwmom]

8. You didn't read the Advocate's article or you would know that they haven't.

There is a lame duck session of Congress -- with Senate and House majorities -- where repeal is still possible. This is why the meeting has been called.

[no limit]

10. Yes, they did fail. They tried putting a ban on DADT in the military budget bill

as soon as the republicans filibustered they gave up on the bill. I dont see what they can do in a lame duck session that they can't do now.

[pnwmom]

14. Then you haven't studied history. Lame duck sessions

are an opportunity for some to vote their conscience without any fear of reprisals from angry voters.

[no limit]

16. What republicans will vote their conscience? Give me names, be a bit more specific

What will your opinion be of this administration if they fail to pass legislation banning DADT?

[pnwmom]

18. The Log Cabin Republicans have a much better idea of that

than any of us can.

Until I know the specifics of how the Administration acts, how can I know how I'll judge it?

[no limit]

26. So you don't know. Your argument is that it's a super secret strategy and we can't know anything

can't know anything about it. We are all too stupid to understand.

Do you not see how absolutely insane that sounds? It's fucking crazy and it's total bullshit. And you know better. So why are you playing dumb?

[pnwmom]

32. You're the one playing dumb. n/t

[no limit]

34. Any time you would like to get in to specifics about what I asked you feel free to

otherwise continue to play dumb.

[pnwmom]

36. See post #35 below. n/t

[no limit]

39. Post 35 did not answer my question

[pnwmom]

42. Thank goodness for the ignore button then. Bye! n/t

[no limit]

44. See my post below, your argument is bullshit (no offense) the client can talk to whoever they want

[no limit]

55. You just edited your post. You made an argument before, when I replied to that argument you...

you added me to ignore and edited your post to say you would add me to ignore, in that edit you deleted what I responded to as if you were pretending your post never happened.

I have not seen that kind of thing here before, Im sure fox news has a position for you ready to go.

[Scurrilous]

3. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[no limit]

4. Is this the meeting where they threatened to shut it down if anyone says anything about the lawsuits

[pnwmom]

7. Some of the parties are involved in litigation against the government.

When a case is being litigated, parties to the case are not supposed to discuss the case outside of court. That isn't anything new to this situation.

Besides, this meeting is supposed to be about how to assure that DADT is repealed in CONGRESS during the next couple months. That would make all the court cases moot.

Some DUers choose to focus on the fact that this meeting will not discuss the Court cases. I think we should focus on what it will discuss -- the IMMEDIATE repeal of DADT.

[no limit]

12. So this is the "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation" argument the Bush admin used?

Is there actually a legal requirement that the OLC can't discuss current cases they are involved with? Or is that just a convenient excuse?

I look forward to your reply.

[pnwmom]

19. This is the simple rule that EVERY lawyer tells EVERY client. n/t

[no limit]

28. What rule where? I don't believe you

[pnwmom]

31. Ask any lawyer. n/t

[no limit]

33. I am asking you. Clearly you have some kind of basis behind your statement?

Don't you?

Or are you just talking out of your ass?

[pnwmom]

38. See post #35. And the same thing goes if you ask this question

again in yet another repetitive post.

[JuniperLea]

23. Cases have been thrown out based on this activity...

No one wants that, right?

[no limit]

27. Cite a law or a specific rule. Please.

Did you think the Bush admin was justified in saying they can't comment on ongoing investigations when it came to torutre, wiretapping, and the outing of a CIA agent?

[JuniperLea]

46. Yes I did...

Have you ever been on a jury? When a case is open in court, you can't discuss it with anyone. You can't even discuss it with other jurors until after final arguments and the jury discusses to make a final decision. Have you never heard of this before? This is really shocking to me.

[no limit]

49. The OLC is not a jury. The OLC is the president's legal defense. Are you aware of that?

And again, until you cite a specific law that prevents the OLC from talking to groups about pending cases I simply do not believe you.

[JuniperLea]

50. You are aware that some of these people...

are working on the case, right?

I'm waiting for word on the exact rule of law for this. I'm not going to guess, and I don't have time to Google it up.

[no limit]

52. yes, I am fully aware that the OLC is working on the case on the president's behalf.

As far as I've been told the president supports the repeal of DADT. A lawyer for a party has every right to comment on issues unless their boss (the president in this case) tells them not to.

Do you have a reason for the president telling them not to comment on this?

[JuniperLea]

53. You have a link showing that?

"A lawyer for a party has every right to comment on issues unless their boss (the president in this case) tells them not to."

[no limit]

A link for what? That the lawyer speaks on behalf of the client?

I can find a link if you'd like if you really need a link, but I first want to hear you say that you don't think that a lawyer speaks on their clients account. I want to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly.

What you seem to be arguing is that if I hire a lawyer I have absolutely no right (legally) to tell him to make public statements on my behalf. Now I think this argument is insane, so I want to make sure that this is indeed what you are arguing.

[JuniperLea]

56. No, what you were actually arguing is what I'm asking...

That a lawyer working on a specific case has the right to discuss that case with others while the case is in court. That is what we're talking about. You can have your lawyer make any statement you like, unless he is discussing actual issues that pertain to the case. When lawyers make such statements, they are vague and blanket.

[no limit]

57. A lawyer working on a case has the right to talk to anyone the person that hired them tells them to

If I hire a lawyer I have the final say in what he can and can not comment on. Right?

There is no way in hell you are seriously making that argument that the client has no say in what their lawyer says publicly. Seriously?

[JuniperLea]

58. Didn't you read recently about the open court case...

that was discussed on Facebook?

I'm sure it's still around here somewhere.

It's a good way to get your case screwed up.

[no limit]

59. Again, a lawyer has to right to talk to anyone the client approves on any topic the client approves.

You are yet to show me any examples that demonstrate otherwise.

[treestar]

62. No, that breaches attorney client privilege

Once a lawyer talks to a third party, the privilege is gone. That's why you can't let a client's friend in the office while you're talking about a case. The friend can now be questioned by the opposition about the conversation, waiving the privilege. This is never in the client's best interests.

[no limit]

64. This is simply not true. I have seen lawyers on TV all the time on behalf of their client

you have too. Remember BP and the lawyer representing the fisherman that always appeared on Chris Matthews? I forget his name now but he's on MSNBC all the time.

If I give my attorney permission to talk he works for me, not the other way around.

These are basic facts, and how people dont know these facts is amazing to me.

[treestar]

61. The lawyer advises the client. Not to comment on the case.

A lawyer is not your weapon, he's your advisor. If you don't like his advice, get another lawyer. In fact, find a stupid one, because that's what he'd have to be to agree to "limited, per client instructions" breaches of the attorney client privilege or the work product rules.

No lawyer is going to endanger himself by speaking about a case, taking a risk of wrecking it, because a client wants him to. Something goes wrong and client will blame him.

A lawyer cannot be a client's puppet. Client can change his mind or say he didn't mean that part of the case.

[no limit]

63. The client in this case is the president who says is against DADT. If they lose the case DADT is ove

so that excuse is bullshit (no offense). And there is no legal obligation for the OLC not to talk.

[no limit]

54. self-delete

[KittyWampus]

11. No this is the meeting that had its agenda set up beforehand like EVERY OTHER BUSINESS MEETING.

In any business meeting that follows rules, from the level of your local garden club to big business to government, the agenda is set beforehand regarding what will be discussed and each item is then brought up accordingly.

Apparently you've never been in a business meeting of any kind.

[no limit]

13. The agenda is to repeal DADT, right?

I didn't know that the agenda was to repeal DADT in a very specific way that will probably fail.

[pnwmom]

17. The agenda is to repeal DADT the same way it was instituted:

through a vote of Congress. And in a lame-duck session, anything could happen.

[no limit]

29. So the agenda is not to repeal DADT? Because it wont happen in congress

and why wouldn't they want it overturned in the courts?

If the Obama admin did not appeal the 9th circuit ruling DADT would be over FOREVER. And don't distpute this, because the argument that it wouldnt be over for forever is absolute bullshit. Once a federal law is overturned it's over, period. And I'm tired of the misinformation around here saying otherwise. Same thing goes that they legally have to appeal, they don't.

[pnwmom]

40. We won't know which of us is right till the lame duck session is over.

Sorry, but I'm not relying on your crystal ball. I'm going to wait and find out what actually happens.

[no limit]

47. Again, the argument you are making is fucking stupid and you are smarter than that

you are saying there are republican senators that will switch sides. But you are saying we can't know who those republican senators are. Only the Obama admin does and we have no right to ask him who they are.

Seriously, think about the argument you are making for just a second.

[Tesha]

51. "Oh look! It's a squadron of pigs flying over the Capitol!" (NT)

[EFerrari]

6. White House threatens gay orgs before key DADT meeting - don't mention DADT cases or meeting over

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9390591

[pnwmom]

9. They didn't "threaten" except in your view, and that of that poster.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss how to get Congress to repeal DADT in the coming lame duck session -- in which case all the DADT cases would be moot.

They can't discuss the DADT cases outside of Court, because some of the parties to the meeting are in litigation with the government. If all those parties would withdraw their lawsuits, then those discussions could go forth. But I'm sure that won't happen, aren't you?

[no limit]

15. Is there a legal requirement that they can't discuss these cases?

[pnwmom]

21. I can't cite statutes for you, but I know it is a universal rule,

not one made up for this situation or even for the Bush administration.

But even if there weren't such a rule, there is the simple matter of TIME. Only some of the parties are involved in litigation, and they all have different cases. It would not be an efficient use of anyone's time. However, all the parties have a stake in whether the Congress successfully repeals DADT in the lame duck session. All their cases will be moot if that happens.

[no limit]

25. So you are telling me that you have absolutely no basis behind your statement?

I am not asking you to cite statues. I am asking you to cite your evidance that the OLC can't discuss cases they are involved in, an argument you made so authoritively as if you had evidance for it. This is an argument Bush and Cheney used all the time to avoid being questioned about the Plame affair. At the time I thought that argument was absolute horseshit, as I'm sure you did to. This is the argument the Obama administartion is making. And you are suddenly defending that argument. I would love for you to tell me why.

Now you said above "but if there weren't such are rule". I'm glad you said that. Because there is no such rule. Don't you think we should have the right to question people involved in these matters? Do you really think there should be ground rules on what should be discussed? I thought we shared the same goal, ending DADT. So why not ask any questions related to that?

Again, I look forward to your reply.

[pnwmom]

35. I personally have a basis, but it won't matter to you.

I was a legal assistant a couple decades ago. But ask any lawyer you know and you'll get the same answer. Clients are not to discuss their ongoing cases with the other parties to the litigation except in a controlled setting for a specific reason (like a settlement discussion) with lawyers present and nobody else.

Even apart from the legal issue, I disagree with you that this meeting should have been open-ended. I think there should be a specific agenda to any meeting to assure an effective use of limited time. And time IS of the essence here, because the lame duck session is almost upon us. The single purpose of this meeting should be to devise a strategy for legislative repeal during the coming session. There will be plenty of time to deal with DADT court cases after that -- IF we need to, if they are not all made moot by legislative repeal.

[no limit]

41. Clients are totally allowed to discuss their cases, ask governor blagojevich

I cant wait to hear your next excuse, I look forward to it.

You keep talking about the lame duck session. But you cant give me any specifics on what will be different in the lameduck session. You are playing dumb, and you know better.

[pnwmom]

43. Not with the opposing side in a lawsuit, outside of a legal setting.

And I don't look to Gov. Blagojevich for legal advice. Anyone who did so would be an idiot.

[no limit]

45. This is not the opposing side, this is the LGBT community

Unless you think the LGBT community is the opposing side of this administration?

[Contrary1]

20. "Here's a shiny object...don't forget to vote next week." n/t

[pnwmom]

22. Lame duck sessions can often accomplish what regular sessions have not.

Why not save your criticism till after we all see whether anything gets accomplished or not?

[no limit]

30. What will your opinion be if they fail in the lame duck session?

[pnwmom]

37. I already answered this question when you asked it elsewhere. n/t

[no limit]

48. No, you did not. What will your opinion be when they fail in the lame duck session?

[NJmaverick]

24. K&R

[Spazito]

60. Thanks for the info!

I have hopes DADT may yet be repealed by Congress before the year is out especially if the Dems keep control of Congress.