White House On DADT Meeting: Mention Court Cases And The Meeting Is Over

[WillParkinson]

White House On DADT Meeting: Mention Court Cases And The Meeting Is Over

As I noted this morning, today the White House will meet with advocates for the repeal of DADT to strategize the coming lame duck session of Congress. Oh, but one little warning to the attendees: if you bring up any of the DADT court cases, this meeting is SO over. From an email from White House LGBT liaison Brian Bond:

“Obviously this meeting has gotten out. We are expecting the content of the conversation today to be off the record and to help us figure out how to move forward with the lame duck session. Also as previously mentioned, there can be no discussion of current court cases or legal strategy or Counsel’s Office will end the meeting. The focus is repeal and the lame duck session. This is also a non-partisan meeting where we want everyone’s help.”

More: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/10/white-house-on-dadt-meeting-mention.html

[joeybee12]

1. Hmm...sounds like they want a lot of participation...

and by participation they want people to sit there, shut up, and listen and do as they're told.

[Sinistrous]

5. Hardly.

Sounds to me as though the WH is trying to get ideas on how to nail the coffin shut on DADT, using the most effective tool, i.e., Congressional repeal. Bringing up the lawsuits in that context is dilatory, no matter how good it would make one feel.

[Duncan Grant]

8. This is about political cover, not congressional repeal, imo. (nt)

[donco6]

9. I have an idea!

Don't appeal.

[laconicsax]

13. If the DOJ doesn't appeal, the coffin is nailed shut.

Seems pretty effective to me.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cliffordu]

3. OF course there aren't any Legal reasons for

not talking about active court cases........

Would there??

[WillParkinson]

4. Then say that...

Don't say, 'mention it and the meeting is over'. That doesn't sound like 'we can't discuss a case that is pending in court'. Yeah, I find both frustrating, but the 2nd one has merit and logic to it.

[FreeState]

6. This n/t

[EFerrari]

10. There are no legal reasons for acting like bullies to your invitees. n/t

[cliffordu]

12. I just wondered.

[Duncan Grant]

7. By any definition, this is not a healthy relationship.

Name any other situation where you'd put up with this type of controlling behavior and disrespect.

Also noteworthy: the people not invited to this meeting.

[EFerrari]

11. Who, can you say? Because I have no clue. n/t