Letter to DoJ - Investigate Democrat Senators Who Threatened Disney/ABC

09/12/2006 | Doc Farmer

[DocFarmer]

Folks,

I'm planning to send a letter to the DoJ as regards last week's attempt by five lib/dem/soc/commie senators to stop the ABC program, "The Path To 9/11". However, since I'm not a member of the legal profession, I'm not sure if I've worded this correctly. I'd appreciate any help or advice you'd be willing to provide. Many thanks.

Doc Farmer

*************************************************

The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales

Attorney General of the United States

Department of Justice

Room 4400

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

12 September 2006

Dear Mr. Attorney General,

I write today to request a formal investigation of five (5) United States Senators

Senator Harry Reid

Senator Dick Durbin

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Byron Dorgan

on the following charges:

(1) Violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

(2) Violation of the Senate Oath of Office

(3) Abuse of Power

(4) Attempted Blackmail/Extortion

The specifics of the accusation are as such. On or about 07 September 2006, the above-mentioned Senators sent a letter to one Mr. Robert Iger, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Walt Disney Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Disney). In that letter, the Senators made specific threats of legal action against the corporation unless they removed or significantly edited a privately-funded and created television program, entitled “The Path To 9/11”. The Senators used the letter to threaten Disney and its program distributor, the American Broadcasting Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ABC) with sanctions (including but not limited to the revocation of broadcasting licenses of ABC affiliate stations) should their demands not be met.

In the matter (1) above, the action of these elected government officials is a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, which provides all private citizens with the right to comment on government actions (past and present) without fear of reprisal or interference by the government. While Congress may create laws to regulate broadcast frequencies (as “public” airways), they have no business controlling political content, whether it be “positive” or “negative” coverage. To threaten a private corporation with sanctions simply because a certain political party or group may disagree with the message is a most fundamental and base violation of American rights.

In the matter (2) above, the action of the Senators shows a clear disregard of their Oath of Office, to wit:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The letter sent by the Senators shows a clear disregard of their oath to support and defend the Constitution (and all of its amendments), as well as their inability to bear true faith and allegiance to same.

In the matter (3) above, the actions of the Senators show, they have gone beyond the scope and authority of their good offices, and have indeed abused their position of power not only in the Senate, but as part of the Senate leadership. While no elected official should be tolerated in such a base manner, the fact that these five Senators are part of the Senate hierarchy makes their action all the more offensive.

In the matter (4) above, the actions of the Senators show, their actions are such that they tried to blackmail or extort actions (not funds) from Disney and ABC, if the demands in their letter were not met. The fact that Disney and ABC did not bow to that pressure does not excuse or ameliorate their attempt.

The letter from the Senators mentioned in specifications (1) through (4) (inclusive) is a matter of public record, and can be obtained by your office directly, from the Senate offices, or from the recipient of the threat (Mr. Robert Iger).

I would appreciate that swift action be taken to investigate this obscene action by duly elected officials of the United States Senate.

Many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Doc Farmer

cc: Senator Harry Reid

Senator Dick Durbin

Senator Debbie Stabenow

Senator Charles Schumer

Senator Byron Dorgan

Senator Bill Frist

Mr. Robert Iger

President George W. Bush

[DocFarmer]

Folks,

I'm planning to send a letter to the DoJ as regards last week's attempt by five lib/dem/soc/commie senators to stop the ABC program, "The Path To 9/11". However, since I'm not a member of the legal profession, I'm not sure if I've worded this correctly. I'd appreciate any help or advice you'd be willing to provide. Many thanks.

Doc Farmer

[AppyPappy]

pang

[toddlintown]

You're going on the DOJ watch list.

[Diogenesis]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

---

"WELCOME TO THE REAL AMERICA WHERE CRIMINALS GET TO BE
CELEBRITIES AND CELEBRITIES GET AWAY WITH MURDER."
"TO DIE FOR" Columbia Pictures

---

[cripplecreek]

I think you would have marginally better luck with writing to the ACLU. The DOJ seems more interested in what the big guys do or say.

[the_Watchman]

I'm telling!!

[SolidSupplySide]

The Dem Senators had a temper tantrum, but they didn't do anything illegal. The Dem Senators were engaging in free speech, a First Amendment right they have. They exercised it irresponsibly, but they didn't use the power of their office in any manner to punish ABC.

You are tilting at windmills.

[M1Tanker]

I say go for it. I doubt the DoJ will do anything, but the point needs made and you did it very well.

[the_Watchman]

I'm not a lawyer either. However, last time I consulted one, they advised me that I should not threaten to bring prosecution in exchange for anything. This type of extortion is illegal. If the Senators hinted that the actions of Disney were illegal, then threats of prosecution are also illegal.

[wideawake]

They implied that they would use their power as members of Congress to punish ABC.

That would be an historic violation of the First Amendment.

[DocFarmer]

Respectfully, I disagree. They attempted to use their position in the government to block the free speech rights of ABC/Disney. To me, that is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

As to tilting at windmills, you say that as if it were a bad thing... :D

Seriously, SOMEbody has to take these scumbags to task for their actions...

[ClaireSolt]

Go ahead and send your letter. You have the right.

then, consider that Sabbenow is vulnerable and up for reelection.

[technomage]

The Dem Senators had a temper tantrum, but they didn't do anything illegal.

You may not be correct.

Yes, they have every right to free speech. However, as the lawmakers of the land, they cannot threaten ABC with revocation of their broadcast license (which they did) just because they do not like what is being aired. At the least, this would be a seem to be serious abuse of power.

[DocFarmer]

What I asked for in "exchange" in my original article on this subject was for those Senators to retract their letter and to apologise. I don't believe that can be viewed as a "threat", but their actions in the letter to Iger (in which they used the Communications Act as a leverage point) DOES constitute a threat.

Frankly, I'm not too concerned with what the Senators or the DoJ think. I'm more concerned with doing what I believe to be right.

[kempster]

There are a lot of thoughts on this and many of them differ. Is there an attorney out there who can advise if this is worthwhile or foolhardy so this gentleman can decide what to do? His intentions are good.

[technomage]

I don't believe that can be viewed as a "threat",

It appears you misunderstood the post. I believe the post was referring to the Senators, not you.

[Gritty]

[DocFarmer]

Sorry, my bad. I thought you meant that MY threat of prosecution action against the Senators would be illegal (which I have to admit confused me).

[trustandobey]

Go for it! Shouldn't Bill Clinton be included though, as well as his attorney?

[goodnesswins]

I think you might think about making this (or something a little less wordy) an op-ed to a conservative leaning newspaper....

[DocFarmer]

I thought about that, but since Slick Willie wasn't a signatory to the letter, and did not make an official "threat" of government action against Disney/ABC, I don't think the charges could be applied to him.

[DocFarmer]

Already did, to an extent -


http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=23630

[johnny7]

I bet before Gonzales even gets a whiff of it... Jaime GORElick will have already deleted it from her laptop... with a chuckle.

[DocFarmer]

I thought she didn't work there anymore...

[Quilla]

I think it's a great letter and you sound just like a lawyer (musta typed it from a Holiday Inn Express). Saying a prayer for positive results.

[DocFarmer]

and you sound just like a lawyer

Geez, there's no reason to get insulting... :D

[I still care]

Actually, he probably is (tilting at windmills) but in an era where not being allowed to produce simulated kid porn can be adjudged as against the first amendment, I would say that a bunch of Senators using official stationery to infer ABC's right to broadcast would be taken away might be illegal.

I mean, if Bush sent a letter to CBS inferring the same for their biased broadcasting, you know the ACLU would be all over it. Maybe that's the direction to go.

Have them spend all their ill gotten gains on something useful for once.

PS. I never send letters to the government, unless they write me first. I'd rather pretend I'm not here.

[Dante3]

I agree with you. They are in violation. The letter sounds good to me and sure cannot hurt.

[Quilla]

Sheesh, what was I thinking? Please forgive me.

[TNCMAXQ]

These are the same loons saying Bush is the one abusing his power and violating civil liberties?? God help us all. If they ever control Congress and the presidency again I truly fear free speech will be eroded and more basic rights will disappear.

[Dante3]

BUMP

BTW, for whatever reason, I am unable tor respond to several posts here but can to others.

[DocFarmer]

That won't work, because the ACFLU is funded by taxpayers (us). They attack free speech, they don't defend it.

[HardStarboard]

>>>I thought she didn't work there anymore...<<<

She doesn't, but she will be your Attorney General if the Dems win in 2008!

[HardStarboard]

>>>I thought she didn't work there anymore...<<<

She doesn't, but she will be your Attorney General if the Dems win in 2008!

[DocFarmer]

That thought is just too frightening to comprehend...

[Doug Loss]

The DOJ definitely won't get involved, as there was no overt action taken and the attempted extortion charge would be so politically hot that they would fear a backlash. However, you should definitely send this or a similar letter to the Senate Ethics Committee chairman (George Voinovich) and request that each of these Senators be formally censured (expulsion is probably too much to expect).

[DocFarmer]

I'll be sure to add the Ethics Committee chair to the cc list. Should I also include the President Pro Tempore and Sergeant at Arms?

[Wuli]

"Second, given that the letter was made available to the public and given that Senators all have attorneys available, I doubt that there is any case to be made."

A threat, an attempt to extort actions from someone, is not determined to be valid or invalid simply because it was made in public and those making the threat have lawyers.

There may be other reasons for which Doc's course of action will not bear fruit. Your reasons are not among them.

[the_Watchman]

You are not understanding my comment. I am not suggesting that your actions are illegal. You would be drawing the attention of the DOJ to potentially illegal actions. That is perfectly acceptable and is not a problem whether those actions are illegal or not.

I am suggesting a way to bolster your charge of "extortion" against the Senators. While their threats of Federal agency action are despicable, they are not illegal. However, if they suggested prosecution, then that could be viewed as either "prior restraint" or threatening prosecution, which is illegal.

[Wuli]

I appreciate your idealism. I doubt the attorney general would accept your wish and open an investigation (it is not GWBs nature to fight his political fights in the same aggressive spirit as the Dims).

However, in the arena of public opinion, with the enough help ($$$) the mass marketing of a public notice of your request could help achieve the public sanctioning of the Dims that they deserve.

[Paperdoll]

>Frankly, I'm not too concerned with what the Senators or the DoJ think. I'm more concerned with doing what I believe to be right.<

I'd be willing to co-sign that letter with you, Doc. We all know what happens when good men do nothing, so go for it!

[DocFarmer]

Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification!

[Wuli]

Using an official public government office and the power of that office to threaten to take action against those who make political statements in dissent to your political sentiments, simply because you do not want their political statements aired does constitute the use of an official position to attempt to extort the said action demanded in the threat. It is illegal; whether or not the threat was answered by meeting its demands.

Whether or not GWB wants to engage his political position in acknowledging that clear power-abusing threat and its illegality is another matter.

[DocFarmer]

I appreciate the offer, Paperdoll. When I complete the letter's final draft, I'll send a formatted copy to anyone who wishes to send it themselves. I'll also do what I can to include all the e-Mail addresses/contacts required to send it to the DoJ and the folks on the cc list.

Many thanks.

[Doug Loss]

I'll be sure to add the Ethics Committee chair to the cc list. Should I also include the President Pro Tempore and Sergeant at Arms?

It wouldn't hurt in my opinion. But as long as you're sending it out widely, make sure to include all the members of the Ethics Committee, the majority leader, the whip, and anyone else who seems like they might be amenable to reason. Include any Dem Sens you can; Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson?

[DocFarmer]

I wonder if a mass distribution/mailing of the letter from Freepers would be a low-cost alternative.

[DocFarmer]

I'll make sure to send the message to ALL members of the committees and leadership as you suggest. Many thanks.

[SolidSupplySide]

It is illegal; whether or not the threat was answered by meeting its demands.

So your position is that words can be illegal even if they aren't even intended to be followed up with action? Wow, that's a weak branch you're sitting on. Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theather would be illegal, but I don't see the Dem Senators' speech as rising to that level.

I think this is much more akin to someone saying, "You know, a lot of rich people keep money in that bank and there's not even a security guard." In your world, that would be enough to convict of conspiracy to rob a bank.

[DocFarmer]

I disagree with your analogy. If I threaten to extort you for a million dollars if you don't do what I say, and you go to the cops with that information instead, I'm still guilty of extortion. If I threaten your ability to speak out against the government, even if you go ahead and speak, I'm still guilty of violating the First Amendment.