Decision ‘08

Harry Reid And The Fine Art Of LawyerBall

The defense of Harry Reid regarding his latest ethical lapses is so plainly flimsy that it’s no wonder he has already decided he’d better give in and try to move on. Let’s break it down:

1. John Solomon is biased. Need I spend any time on this? Blaming the messenger is surely not an argument worth addressing. We can decide for ourselves the merits of the case without falling prey to the author’s spin.

2. Harry Reid voted against the interests of the people that gave him the free boxing tickets. This is sophistry at a high level. When a congressman accepts gifts from a party he holds financial or legislative power over, that is inherently unethical. It matters not that he ultimately decided for or against the party that attempted to buy him out - the only correct reaction is to say “I’m not for sale” and politely refuse the gift. Indeed, if I may be a bit vulgar here: Reid, by taking the tickets, then ruling against the parties that provided them, was worse than a whore; he was, in fact, a tease…

3. The third excuse is really brazen - it’s the argument the Reid couldn’t pay for his seats, because they are ‘credentials’ and not ‘tickets’. Well, my, my, my - isn’t that cozy that the boxing folks saw fit to create this special category of graft, this idea of ‘credentials’ that are only open to public officials (and this is from the defense)! And how convenient that they’re in the rich folks’ section ringside! A more out-in-the-open form of bribery would be hard to concoct.

In short, the Reid defense consists of (1) blaming the messenger, (2) claiming the virtue of the tease, and (3) taking advantage of an out-and-out transparent bribery scheme.

You’ll excuse me if I remain unconvinced…

15 Responses to “Harry Reid And The Fine Art Of LawyerBall”

1 mikebdot Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 8:24 am
You’re talking about a few incidents in which the “bribed” party didn’t even vote for what the supposed “bribers” were pushing (whatever that may have been, presumably, no government oversight? or maybe they wanted government oversight to look like they were being a legit operation and now there is graft and corruption within said newly formed government bureaucracy, but that would be speculation). And we’re somehow supposed to equate that with the K-street project and other respectable Republican activities? I’m not going to disagree that the “culture of corruption” meme isn’t tired, but it’s no more tired than any other political meme (democrats want to kill all unborn babies, immigrants are invading the nation, black people are stupid, especially black people who didn’t leave their homes in N.O., balanced budgets will come if tax cuts are made permanent because revenue will increase enough to pay for the cuts, yadda yadda yadda).

Also, what are you ‘unconvinced’ of? That Reid didn’t behave unethically? I don’t think that is the argument that TPM is making. They’re saying he didn’t act as unethically as some might lead you to believe (like Solomon). See this post by Josh. Key graf:

“At the end of the day, Sen. Reid got to sit ringside to watch a big prize fight because he’s a US senator. I didn’t get to go and neither did you. I think those facts speak for themselves. If that’s Solomon’s point, put us down as a big thumbs-up.”

Also, another key point from the earlier article (the one linked in your post), Reid previously paid for tickets when attending events and tickets were actually used for the seats. Casinos and other facilities often have seats available to give away. If they give them away to a congressmen, what’s the problem? He accepted 3 gifts legally, even though the ethical rules guard against such instances. He’s now saying he won’t do it again. What more do you want from him?
Do you want legislation to ban this sort of activity? I won’t hold my breath leaving it up to the Republican congress to curb lobbyist influence. HA HA HA! That’s a rich one. Hardy har har.
2 Mark Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 9:19 am
Mike, I laid my case out in the post - it speaks for itself…I’m sorry, I have nothing more to say on this. It’s as plain as day that Reid behaved unethically in this situation. Does that mean the world has quit turning? Of course not.

Why does it matter to me? Because a big theme of the Left has been ‘the culture of corruption’, and certain blogs (Atrios, Kos, TPM, firedoglake) insist to this day that no Democrat ever took a penny from Abramoff and his clients and that this is a one-party problem.

This story is illustrative of the corruption that pervades both parties.

Frankly, I think my case is succinct and convincing…
3 mikebdot Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 9:45 am
But, your point in this post is that TPM is defending Reid wholesale and they are not. They are saying that Solomon is telling half-truths in order to make Reid’s actions seem worse than they really are. Personally, I think the TPM folks do a very good job at being just as succinct and convincing as you think you are. I’m just coming to bat for TPM as it is the first blog I read regularly during 2004. Also, to speak directly to your third point, they aren’t defending Reid by using Arum’s statement, they are saying that Solomon is a hack for misquoting Arum (very badly at that). I am the one defending Reid by saying this level of corruption is no where near the level of the current Republican leadership. That is what the lefty sites you mention will maintain as well. I happen to agree with them, but I think the “culture of corruption” phrase is just as worthless as “speaking truth to power” or “compassionate conservatism” or “social liberal, fiscal conservative” or some other such political jingoism.

By the way, the phrase “culture of corruption” has been used exactly 7 times on Josh’s main site (mostly in passing or in a quote). Oh, according to a quick google search, it’s been mentioned 5 times by atrios. Kos (24,200 - it’s a community site, which atrios isn’t) and firedoglake (55 this year since they changed to firedoglake.com and dropping the blogspot or whatever they used to be) are a bit more liberal with the phrase.

Also, TPM regularly reports on Democrats being in the muck too.

I no longer read firedoglake because they are pompous, but, yes, Atrios and Kos love them.

Also, lefties usually insist that Abramoff never effected the money his “clients” would have given the democrats anyway, based on previous donations they already gave democrat leadership. Abramoff gave directly (from his own pocket) to Reps exclusively. You can explain this away anyway you want, but I think that case is succinct and convincing…
4 David M. Smith Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 9:58 am
Mike and Mark,

One of the methods for raising campaign money is to threaten to legislate regulations or increased regulations on a company or industry with the objective of receiving donations from the threatened company or industry.

For years Microsoft and Bill Gates stayed out of politics and remained neutral. They no longer have that luxury. Threats and intimidation forced Microsoft to start greasing palms.

Reid knew exactly what he was doing. There is no defense.
5 Mark Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:49 am
Mike, don’t get me wrong, I make no excuses for Abramoff-related Republican abuses, nor do I make the equivalence between what Reid did and what, say, Cunningham did…
6 dmac Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:16 pm
“Also, lefties usually insist that Abramoff never effected the money his “clients” would have given the democrats anyway…”

This is just more parsing of language in the usual lawyerly - speak that we see from both sides these days. Reminds me of the infamous “no controlling legal authority,” from not too long ago, only to be topped later on from the classic statement, “depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
7 mikebdot Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:22 pm
dmac: What is your obsession with the Clenis? Do you often wonder if it hooks to the left (since he’s a lefty and all). I guess it would depend on your point of view though, huh? For Monica, maybe it was right.

No, tribes giving thousands of dollars to democratic candidates year after year and then giving less money to democrats when Abramoff gets involved isn’t lawyer talk. It’s a fact that affords some deductive conclusions the left makes. I happen to agree with that deductive logic.

I’m strongly in favor in knowing all the rules so you know how to get around them. It’s fair game. It’s how the political game will always work and I have absolutely no problem with that. However, when lobbyists are literally allowed to buy votes, that’s when I have a problem. That was not the case here. Nor was it the case in the other Solomon article.
8 Mark Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
So, just so I’m clear, you have no problem with unethical behavior, as long as there is not an explicit quid pro quo? Because that’s exactly what you just said in your last paragraph…
9 mikebdot Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:23 pm
No, noticing technicalities in the system isn’t necessarily unethical, especially if the decisions which are made are logical decisions that help the populace. Even implicit quid pro quo would be unacceptable. All ethical guidelines have a line which is drawn. No corporate ethical guidelines require you to be a saint. Niether should political ones. Neither should personal ones. I think logic should be the dominant decision making tool, but call me crazy if you wish. I’ll be the first to argue that ethics are based on logic/game theory anyhow. To say “gee, that’s unethical, he should be kicked out of office” holds little weight. To say “gee, he/she’s incompetent, he/she should be kicked out of office” is a much stronger argument (if actually made).

My last paragraph was meant to show that I’m not unreasonable about various ethical lapses being made in government. It’s going to happen, but if the intent is to defraud the public or get money out of it, it is stealing, plain and simple. It’s the same as stealing cable or pirating movies. Using your power to obtain money is one thing, in this case I don’t think that was what happened based on Reid’s history of paying for events.
10 dmac Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:18 pm
“What is your obsession with the Clenis?”

You must be fantasizing- no obsession here. In fact, I’ve given him much credit in this blog (how long have you been here - not very long, based on this assumption) for his handling of the economy, his environmental record, Hillary’s foresight of the forthcoming health care crisis (although I believe that she went about it in a misguided way), and so on. OTOH, I did not care for his policies regarding the rest of the world, and have been vocal about that as well.

I’ve also stated that I cared less who did what to whom in his oval office, so it looks like you’re taking one sentence and making it into some kind of a grand oeuvre’ here. Quite shoddy work on your part, and is indicative of someone trying to make a claim that he cannot support.

If I’m wrong, please give cites for your declarative statement - if none are forthcoming, then you’re just talking out of your backside.
11 dmac Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
“For Monica, maybe it was right.”

I guess this really breaks them up on the Stern show - I dub thee a brilliant farseur!
12 mikebdot Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 5:15 pm
dmac: As it turns out, I don’t listen to Stern.

As for your ‘obsession’ I only meant why bring it up in one of the two sentences of some sort of ‘response’ to me, in which nobody mentions Clinton at all. It does not connect to this in any way shape or form. When someone makes a point, why go THERE? You’re the one that took it THERE. The second someone takes it out of bounds I steal the ball and just run with it. It’s more for humor than anything else.

In any event, sorry for my ’shoddiness’, as if your initial response was a work of logical art. Oh, someone is making a logical argument, it’s lawyer speak, just like when Clinton said “is” should be defined. Hardy har har. Sorry I didn’t laugh at that and say nothing in response.
13 dmac Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 5:50 pm
“The second someone takes it out of bounds I steal the ball and just run with it.”

Stay tuned for additional tired sports metaphors.

“Sorry I didn’t laugh at that and say nothing in response.”

So this sentence refers to…what, exactly?

“When someone makes a point, why go THERE?”

Is this a line from your high school years?
14 dmac Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Mike, just yanking your chain here. Thought you knew that, but it’s hard to get context into this particular medium of communication. Talk to you later.
15 Robman Says:
August 7th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Wow! Boxing tickets. I’ll take that any day over Enron (the largest contributor to the Bush campaign), no bid contracts for Haliburton, Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, and a president who literally did not know the difference between shi’a and sunni as late as 2003. Shall I go on? I can.

What happened to the Eisenhower republicans, or even the Nixon republicans for that matter? The party’s has lost its soul.