Wallace let Kingston falsely claim CREW is a "partisan 527 organization"
On the October 8 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace left unchallenged Rep. Jack Kingston's (R-GA) false claim that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a "partisan 527 organization." In fact, CREW is a nonpartisan and nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization.
Kingston misrepresented CREW while baselessly suggesting that CREW may have been complicit in a scheme to benefit Democrats by withholding from the media incriminating emails that former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) allegedly sent to underage congressional pages shortly before the midterm elections. In fact, The Hill newspaper reported that the media received Foley's alleged emails "from a House GOP aide" who "has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote," and ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross reportedly said that the sources for his initial Foley report -- to the extent they had partisan affiliations -- were Republicans; CREW provided the FBI with the emails allegedly sent from Foley to a former page on July 21, two months before ABC News reported their existence, as Media Matters for America has noted. The FBI has claimed that CREW did not provide the necessary follow-up information to act on the tip, but the FBI's account is inconsistent and contradictory, as Media Matters has also shown.
As Media Matters has documented, Kingston and Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) pushed wholly unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Democrats' purported prior knowledge of Foley's electronic communications during an October 6 appearance on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews. Fox News host Sean Hannity and U.S. News & World Report senior writer Michael Barone have also baselessly accused CREW of withholding Foley's alleged communications with underage pages, as Media Matters has also noted.
From the October 8 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Let me ask you about that, Congressman Kingston. What does [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi and [Rep.] Rahm Emmanuel [D-IL] -- they, of course, are two Democratic leaders -- what do they have to go under oath about?
KINGSTON: Well, Chris, what I don't understand is, where have these emails been for three years? Are we saying that a 15-year-old child would have sat on e-mails that were X -- triple X-rated for three years and suddenly spring them out right on the eve of an election? That's just a little bit too suspicious, even for Washington, D.C. We do know that George Soros, a huge Democrat [sic] backer, has a group called CREW, it's a 527 partisan group, they apparently had the emails as late as this April and did not do anything about it. And that's according to the FBI, as reported in one statement. But again, if [House Speaker] Denny Hastert [R-IL] knew this guy was sexually deviant, he would have tossed him overboard a year ago because it is a safe Republican seat. It's a generic Republican seat. Anybody with a Republican jersey could have won. All we would have had to do is say, "Mark, you're doing some bad stuff. You gotta move on." We would not have to spend a nickel to protect that seat.
It's not working, you fools. Stop. You're embarassing yourselves. And the country as a whole.
Even Tony Blankley and Pat Buchanan, known righwing apologists, say that it is not a bipartisan issue, and they are trying to tell others to stop trying to make it one!
A GOP congressman preys on a teenager, the GOP leadership tries to cover it up. Keeps the only Democrat on the Page committee in the dark about the emails. And in the end somehow its all the Democrats fault. Gotta give them credit for nerve. Minus points for honesty and integrity but bonus points for brassy nerve.
"We do know that Rupert Murdoch, a huge Republic [sic] backer, has a group called FOX, it's a 527 partisan group,"
"Anybody with a Republican jersey could have won. All we would have had to do is say, "Mark, you're doing some bad stuff. You gotta move on." We would not have to spend a nickel to protect that seat."
So, again, instead of referring the matter to the proper authorities, the Republican Party would have preferred to send this guy out to pasture with a behind the back nod and wink.
We cannot, however, let this scandal make the election seem like a cakewalk. These sewer-dwellers are great at get out the vote activities, we must do the same. Ask friends if they need a ride to their polling place, if they are going to vote democrat, remind them of 2000 Florida and 2004 Ohio where small numbers of additional votes (well, properly counted) would have made the difference. It's time that this Elephant congress shuffle off to their graveyard.
- In fact, CREW is a nonpartisan and nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. - mmfa
Non-partisan...what a laugher.
The staff at CREW is dominated by former employees of mmfa, AFJ, and the Sierra Club.
From CREW's website, "The groups that have pioneered this type of legal advocacy are avowedly conservative: Judicial Watch, the Rutherford Institute, and the National Legal and Policy Center, to name just a few. Conservative groups such as these have no real parallel in the progressive arena...CREW fills that niche."
AFJ, from their website states that as a benefit of membership, "You will join nearly 60 national, regional and local leaders working for a wide range of progressive causes".
The tentacles of mmfa, afj, and crew are entwined in a vast array of liberal causes. Certainly their right...but let's be honest about who they really are.
is crew's legal description? another attempt by you to avoid the issue. they are not a 527.
I'm so positive {sarcasm on} that if the tables were turned and an obviously conservative group was calling itself (legally or not) non-partisan, you'd say the same thing. What a hypocrite!
Non-Partisan? What a laugh. CREW=Smoking gun=Democratics held back information in time for elections
Here's what it reads at the bottom of the CREW homepage:
ABOUT CREW
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a non-profit, progressive legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions.
Progressive? Isn't that the nouveau term for liberal? Just like MMfA is Progressive.
Here's a few items about some of the allegedly non-partisan staff:
Melanie Sloan, Executive Director-->Ms. Sloan served as Minority Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, working for Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) and specializing in crime issues.( she worked for a democrat--thats telling)
Naomi Seligman Steiner, Deputy Director and Communications Director-->Ms. Seligman Steiner received her B.A. from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Amherst? UMass? A liberal bastion--that's telling)
Kimberly Perkins, Counsel-->she served as Assistant General Counsel for the National Office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) (NAACP? As liberal as can be--that's telling)
Melissa Cuerdon, Executive Assistant-->Ms. Cuerdon also has interned at the Sierra Club and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). (Sierra Club? Enough said.) ACORN? Social Policy, a quarterly journal covering community and labor organizing, is now published jointly by the ACORN Institute and AISJ in collaboration with the Organizer's Forum. With 30+ years of experience publishing progressive exchange for academics and activists ( There's that word Progressive again--that's telling)
Lida Masoudpour, Special Projects Associate-->Prior to joining the organization, Ms. Masoudpour worked at the nonprofit, media watchdog group, Media Matters for America. (Media watchdog? Better add Progressive to that description. A MMfA alumni--can this entry be more telling?)
Robin Powers, Research Associate-->Ms. Powers also has interned with the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois (ACLU?--That's telling)
CREW non-partisan? Sure MMfA, and I have this bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
>>"Non-Partisan? What a laugh."<<
The IRS says otherwise. Address your Hastert-like blame-shifting, Hannityesque responsibility-ducking rant to the IRS:
Complete a Form 3949-A and mail to: Internal Revenue Service Fresno, CA 93888
Kingstons fantasy plot must be true then.
Facts are that CREW did not hold back info. Giving information to the FBI is not holding back information. It's the FBI's job to start an investigation. CREW did not leak it to ABC. Brian Ross has already said that his source is a Republican.
you are confusing an ideological bend with endorsing a political party. there is nothing that says they can't promote a viewpoint. or that organizations on the conservative side can't do the same. spin all you want. you can't change that fact.
Non partisan has a legal meaning. That meaning has nothing to do with their motives. ARE THEY WORKING TO ELECT DEMS. DO they advocate for democrats directly? If the answer to that question is no then they are non partisan. All your spinning wont change the blue sky red.
Doesn't tell the entire story now does it?
Melanie Sloan may have worked for a democrat, but that doesn't actually make her one. She might be, but because you work for a democrat, it doesn't mean that you are one, or that you even take the same stance as they do. For example, William Cohen worked for Bill Clinton as Sec Def, and Clinton was and is a democrat, yet Cohen was and is a republican. It is entirely possible to be a republican and work for a dem, and vice versa.
Naomi Seligman Steiner, because she went to U Mass Amherst, this makes her a liberal? By what reasoning do you come to this conclusion? If you had ever stepped foot onto the Amherst campus you would realize a couple of things. One, most students there don't care about politics, and 2, the thing that they're most concerned about is partying. Just because she went to a University in New England, does not make her a liberal. I also went to a University in New England, and I knew a lot of people who were republicans.
Kimberly Perkins works, or did work for the NAACP. You do realize that the current President of the NAACP is indeed a conservative republican right? Yes, it's true. Aside from that, the NAACP works to protect the rights of black folks in America, no matter what their political persuassion.
Melissa Cuerdon has ties to the Sierra Club, and I do as well, being a member and all, and once again, I personally know many republicans, conservatives, who are members of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club wants to promote environmental responsibility, and be good stewards of the land that is in the US. What is so liberal about that? Shouldn't this be a goal of everyone really? Good environmental policy and conservatism?
Lida Masoudpour did work for MMFA, and indeed, MMFA makes no bones about who they're watching in the media, and they are looking for conservative bias in the media. This is not in question at all is it? Now, this person might be a liberal, but once again, just because they work for a known liberal organization, in this case, MMFA, this doesn't mean they are a liberal, or a progressive, or even a democrat.
Robin Powers and the ACLU. When are republicans going to learn that everyone should be a card carrying member of the ACLU? Here is an organization that fights for the rights of every American, no matter their political tilt, as long as what they are doing, or asking for fits within the confines of that pesky little document we call the Constitution. I keep hearing republicans talk about how they are strict interpreters of the Constitution, yet decry the work that the ACLU does. The ACLU adheres, to the word, to the Constitution of the US, and they have taken up many conservative issues, and continue to take up conservative issues every single day. There are a lot of people in the ACLU that are republicans and conservatives. All you need to believe in to work for the ACLU, or be a supporter of the ACLU is to believe in the Constitution of the United States of America. Do you believe in it? Seeing how you scoffed at the ACLU, I'd say you're on board with George W and his companions who continue to use said document as toilet paper to wipe their butts with.
Basically, you used innuendo, and alleged ties to say that the people working for CREW are partisan, and liberals. We don't know for sure now do we? We just have your supposition that they are, when indeed, the work that they do is not.
And you forgot some folks in there as well, choosing instead to cherry pick the people who you "thought" might be liberals as related by their backgrounds. Here is the full list:
[link to www.citizensforethics.org]
As others have pointed out, drafted complaints against Jefferson: [link to www.citizensforethics.org]
Maybe they track down and file complaints about republicans, because those are the ones being ethically challenged?
I didn't mention the "527" issue because it is well documented by mmfa that Kingston was not correct. Got it genius?
I did mention mmfa's dubious reporting of CREW as non-partisan...which is a blatant attempt at disguising the real facts.
CREW has published a list...in their judgement...of the most corrupt members of congress. There attacks are 90% against republicans.
Non-partisan? LOL.
then that makes CREW non-partisan.
means not associated with a political party or endorsing candidates. therefore crew is by legal definition non partisan. the irs says so.
- Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation - Judicial Watch website.
- Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization - mmfa
mmfa should have the integrity to describe CREW as the liberal, non-partisan (by legal definition) group that they are.
mmfa talks the talk but fails to walk the walk...they express outrage at others that make "uncritical or dubious" statements...and they prove to be no better.
I take no offense at mmfa promoting liberal agendas or policies but honesty is lacking in many of their reports.
>>"I take no offense at mmfa promoting liberal agenda..."<<
It took your so-called "liberal" organization to be concerned enough to take action against a sexual predator. Turns out we should have known better than to depend on the Republicans. Seems they had other things (covering it up) on their agendas.
This is how mmfa reports on conservative, non-partisan groups:
- the conservative Judicial Watch, which has received more than $7 million in funding from the right-wing Scaife foundations; and the Campaign Legal Center, whose president...served in President George H.W. Bush's administration.
Campaign Legal Center's staff also includes director of academic affairs and deputy general counsel...who counseled the Bush-Cheney '00 campaign; and board member...who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses.
Here's a cross-section of CREW:
Their Ex.Dir. worked for Conyers, Schumer, and Biden.
The Dep.Dir. and Special Projects Assoc. are former employees of mmfa.
Several lawyers and research personnel are former employees of the self-avowed progressive organization,AFJ.
And of course, liberal Soros has spent millions of dollars funding these type of groups.
mmfa chooses to call CREW a non-partisan, non-profit outfit...when they are clearly a liberal organization...strange...dubious...uncritical.
Are you proud of Republicans? Are you proud of Foley? Hastert? Hastert's avoidance? Hastert's and Foley's cover-up? The Republican complacency that allowed a sexual predator to roam the halls of Congress for years? Proud of the sad, current, right-wing, Rove-like attempts at shifting the blame to gays, Clinton, Democrats? Anyone but themselves? The lack of responsibility on the part of those Republicans who knew about Foley's antics and did nothing?
It took your alleged "liberal partisan" CREW to step up and take some action. Republicans covered-up and blame others for their mistakes.
First of all, if you are trying to argue that for the sake of consistency, MMFA should have labeled CREW a "liberal" non-partisan advocacy group, then I agree completely with that.
If you are trying to argue that an entity cannot be both liberal and non-partisan at the same time, you are just as incorrect as can be.
The ACLU is a "liberal" non-partisan group that has successfully sued Democrats and Republicans alike. The same can be said for one of the other examples above on the conservative end of the ideological spectrum -- Judicial Watch.
You seem to make the conflation of "liberal" ideological advocacy with "Democratic" political advocacy. They are simply two completely independent things. You should know that.
Non-partisan organizations (on both sides) usually stick to principles above advancing a particular party's objectives.
As for CREW, I am glad they forwarded their information to the FBI (and they would be right in my opinion to release this info to the media considering the FBI's apparent inaction even though they claim they didn't) and am curious as to why the FBI was not on top of this before ABC News was.
- MMFA should have labeled CREW a "liberal" non-partisan advocacy group - openmind
That is exactly what I meant. Thank you.
mmfa labeled them what they are, by legal definition. what they are not is a 527, which is partisan by definition because it does advocate for parties and candidates. funny how you have such a problem with something that was totally accurate, but you don't seem to have a problem with the lie.
I don't think it is arguable that Kingston is in anyway correct if indeed someone is arguing that. Wesley, however, is correct in my opinion that MMFA should have labeled CREW a "liberal" non-partisan organization as that appears to be the case.
There are 2 main reasons:
1. Consistency. In order to be consistent with previous descriptions of conservative non-partisan organizations.
2. Transparency. Omitting this kind of information could make a skeptical reader question MMFA's motives. In order to be more persuasive, all the cards need to be on the table here.
Although, I don't really believe CREW can be honestly called to task for anything they have done up to this point, it may be considered somewhat relevant by some readers that the CREW organization is both "liberal" and non-partisan. MMFA should ammend that part of the article.
he's trying to say that mmfa did something wrong by not labeleing crew as liberal. that is not relevant to the issue. they were called a "partisan 527" organization. clearly they are a 503. big difference. and a big lie. wesley wrote "non partisan...what a laugher". something laughable about the truth?
I agree with everything you said, but MMFA should have labeled with "liberal" to let people decide for themselves the relevance.
You and I may agree it isn't relevant, but omitting that info is unnecessarily calling MMFA's motives into question.
Maybe MMFA didn't intentionally OMIT the fact that CREW is a Progressive organization, but I agree with you in thinking it does call in to question their motives. Especially since MMFA has no problem labeling OTHER organizations as Conservative despite the fact that they also are NOT a "partisan 527 organization"
Example:
The Heritage Foundation is ALSO a 501 (c) (3)
=====
From their website:
Is Heritage affiliated with any political party?
No, The Heritage Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. We do not support any political party or engage in lobbying activities.
=====
The Heritage Foundation is of course as most of us know, a Conservative "Think Tank"
And MMFA had no problem labeling them Conservative:
An August 17 ABC World News with Charles Gibson report on District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program is unconstitutional featured only Bush administration officials and a senior research fellow from the **conservative Heritage Foundation** defending the "necessity" of the program.
[link to mediamatters.org]
While I also agree with others here that "Wallace let Kingston falsely claim CREW is a "partisan 527 organization" and THAT is the topic of this thread....MMFA should have INCLUDED the term Progressive or Liberal in describing the group to--as you pointed out--to retain some CONSISTENCY.
the example you provide is related to the fact that only conservatives were permitted on that show. that was relevant to that topic. had a member of crew been on the show, then you would have heard something like only one person represented the liberal view. i don't see any inconsistency. just stating that crew is in fact the opposite of what the congressman said.
Do you know what the term non partisan MEANS in this context? Legally they are non partisan, they are NOT a 527 MMFA was correct. I saw no claim they were not progressive or liberal. These terms do NOT equate to being partisan. IF you dont understand that educate yourself if you do you are being disengenuous. MMFA is correct.
I agree that speaking-out to the FBI about a potential sexual predator in Congress would be something liberal-minded citizens would be more apt to do. Right-wing apologists would attempt to cover up the scandal and seek to put the blame elsewhere. Which is exactly what has happened.
What a laugher.
the republicans apparently are sending out their most skilled liars. kingston says that crew had the e-mails "and did not do anything about it. and that's according to the fbi, as reported in one statement." pure fiction. crew turned the e-mails over to the fbi and they were the ones who did nothing. i thought the most telling moment came at the end of the show today when wallace read the mail. and a woman had written in about last sunday's discussion of woodward's book "state of denial". the woman basically said that those in washington assume that people out in the country are interested in what woodward writes, but she, like the rest of the public, couldn't care less. not a word on the charges woodward made, including condi ignoring a direct dire warning of an upcoming attack that should have brought on a general mobilization by the government. this woman has chosen to be the typical fox viewer and limbaugh listener. just tell us what we want to hear, reenforce our own beliefs, and to hell with anything to the contrary. it's like franken's dittohead buddy. as many times as al shows rush to be telling a direct lie, his buddy will say "but what rush's point was..." you have no point if it's built on a lie. the "base" is willfully ignorant.
... but your headline of "Wallace let Kingston falsely claim... " is probably not correct.
I think it is much more likely that Wallace (and FOX NEWS) did not just let Kingston say it, they had him reading from a FOX NEWS teleprompter.
Why the Republicans think that some how the Democrats are involoved in this, is because it is something that they would do. Their billionarie, R.M.Scaife funded all kinds of smear newspapers, magizines and book publishers that produced all kinds of crap and lies about the Democrats and liberals. Our billionaire likes to promote the truth, accountablity and responsibility.
It's important to know that Crew has stated in its blog that the FBI "made things up", referring to the suggestion that CREW learned of these emails back in April. There you go FBI. You are being accused of lying. Defend yourself if you can.
Crew gave out to CNN the name of the FBI agent they sent the emails to. The agent didn't return the calls from CNN before they broadcast the story.
This doesn't necessarily exhonerate CREW, but I find it interesting that the FBI is not answering calls and CREW is being very upright and vigorous in their own defense.
She's been first (or at least waaaaay ahead of the crowd) to break alot of Washington scandals (Cunningham, Ney, Abramoff, DeLay and Jefferson, a Dem btw) . Before the Foley mess she couldn't seem to get the media's attention, or get anyone from Congress to even file an ethics complaint on anything even with the exceptionally good dirt CREW discovers.
Now she's got nitwits tring to implicate CREW in a timing conspiracy? Sorry, for my money, I'll bet on Melanie and CREW's integrity over the FBI or the DOJ.
(and I wouldn't try to get away with anything with Sloan/CREW as the local watchdogs!)
of CREW on the Al Franken show almost every week. Not only was CREW way out in front on the Abramoff, Cunningham, and Delay scandals, they have been diligent in reporting on the Jefferson (Democrat), and the West Virginia Congressman (can't remember his name) scandals as well. That's the difference between conservatives and progressives. While progressives acknowledge and condemn the innapropriate activities of their representatives, conservatives, lie, cover up, excuse, justify, celebrate, or simply ignore the activities of their representatives in a blatant attemp to hold onto power. An earlier post claimed that 90% of CREW's stories concerned republican corruption. That clearly shows that CREW exposes democratic corruption as well. 90% to 10% sounds about right to me.
That 90/10 sounds about right to me too. After all, the Republicans hold power in all branches of government. And we know that the ones holding power are the ones who are corruptable. Dems don't hold power right now.
As I recall when the Democrats were in government all the scandals had much smaller price tags, a Democrat speaker of the house from Texas selling copys of a book he wrote for several hundred dollars. Another from IL for playing fast and loose with hundreds of dollars in stamp money? A chairman of the ways and means committee getting free gifts that amounted to the kind of money Tom Delay got in free meals alone, while he discussed multimillion dollar bribes!
Crooks is crooks, but there is several orders of magnitude difference here. To find truly corrupt Democrats, you have to go to the days when both parties had their share of conservative crooks, before the Republicans cornered the market.
It was a safe seat, but there are issues beyond having a Republican in it, the question is what republican and to whom is he indebted? In 2003, when a report surfaced in the news that Foley was gay, he vehemently accused people of slurring him, and, as reported in [link to www.sptimes.com]
"In Florida Foley did succeed in getting control of the budding story, sort of. He rounded up prominent conservatives, from Gov. Jeb Bush to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, to tout his strong Republican record."
Tossed him overboard? I don't think so
there is no such thing as a "safe seat"