« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Lanny Davis Now Lobbying In Support Of Honduran Coup
It seems like just yesterday that Lanny Davis was making the rounds of every news outlet that would have him, talking up Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House -- and/or pushing the Reverend Wright story.
Not too long after, the former Clinton White House counsel popped up to do damage control for hawkish Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman over the AIPAC leak story.
And now the hardest working conservative Democrat in show business has a new gig: lobbying against the Honduran leader recently deposed in a military coup.
The Hill reports that Davis has been hired by the Honduran branch of CEAL, the Latin American equivalent of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to urge US lawmakers to support, rather than oppose, the military removal of President Manuel Zelaya, Honduras's democratically elected president.
Of course, thanks to his close ties to the current Secretary of State -- who met with Zelaya yesterday -- Davis could be particularly well placed for the job. But the Fox News contributor said he had no plans to set up a meeting between Clinton and the current and former Honduran government officials with whom he's working.
Although last month Zelaya was taken from his bed by the military and forcibly removed from the country, Davis portrayed his work for the coup's supporters as all about law and order:
Davis said the business group wants to restore order to Honduras, which has been in upheaval since the country's military ousted Zelaya on June 28 after he tried to alter the constitution."This is about the rule of law. That is the only message we have," Davis said, adding that Zelaya "was acting unconstitutionally and illegally" when he pushed for a voter referendum to change presidential term limits. The Central American nation's other branches of government opposed his move, and his decision to ignore them led to his ouster.
Already, Davis has lined up meetings between Senate and House foreign relations committee aides and current and former high-level officials with the Honduran government
For by no means the first time, Davis finds himself lined up with Republicans, who have charged that, since the coup, the Obama administration has offered "one-sided support" to Zelaya, an ally of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
Hey, a guy has to make a living.
| TOPICS: AIPAC, Hillary Clinton, Jane Harman, Lanny Davis, Lobbyists
Josh
Zachary
Pimp.
July 14, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right industry. Wrong box on the TOE. Move down one level from "pimp" on the organizational chart and you'll find Lanny.
July 14, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking "scumbag".
July 14, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hired gun would be more descriptive.
July 14, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me or does Lanny Davis look like, act like and talk like a sleaze merchant?
With "conservative" Democrats like Davis who needs enemies?
July 14, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like it's right up our alley.
Since we've been a nation, we've attempted to overthrow dozens of nations... military, dictatorial and democratic (remember Iran USED to be a democracy until our CIA helped distinguish it and set up the Shah (king)) nations.
We have also protected and defended dozens of military, dictatorial and democratic nations.
We seem to have little preference for WHICH nations we defend or destroy... as long as it pleases those folks in Washington who happen to be benefitting on way or another...
Of course, the dying patriots and innocent folks are of little concern.
Don't believe me... just name the number of soldiers who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan this year... or repeat their names.
Now... back to the really important folks who seem to always profit from the dead, like Hillary, Jane, George, Dick, Lanny... and a few hundred others...
July 14, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davis is hardly my kind of people, but he does have a point. From what I can read the mess in Honduras was an overreaction to Zelaya's illegal efforts to change the constitution of his country.
By trying to engineer a second term for himself, Zelaya was breaking the law, and was repeatedly told to stop by the courts.
The Honduran military was wrong to deport him - but if I understand correctly, they would have been within the law if they had brought him up on charges.
The situation is unnecessarily muddy; no one comes out looking great, but Zelaya is not the good guy who was kicked out by the bad guys - this is more a case of one man's ambition for personal power colliding with the existing power structure.
How they all back off and undo the mess is anybody's guess.
July 14, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before you start assigning "good guy/bad guy" status do some reading here;
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/neoboho/
http://www.counterpunch.org/thorensen07012009.html
these sources seem credible to me.
July 14, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonnie, here's another interesting link at HufPo in case you missed it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jules-siegel/honduras-supreme-court-it_b_230621.html
Jules Siegal apparently has been able to review some of the documentary evidence that many of us would like to see - and the big one - the Supreme Court case docs pertaining to the Zelaya ouster. Here's what I think is key to the question being debated here:
""Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection 'shall cease forthwith' in his duties," Mr. Estrada writes. Curiously, Article 239 is nowhere mentioned in the Supreme Court papers. No one in all the discussions I've read so far has been able to come up with a single statement in which President Zelaya mentions continuing in office."
If Siegal is correct, what? Does this mean that Zelaya was exiled because there was really no prosecutable legal case against him?
July 15, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANKS,VERY HELPFUL
July 15, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not the only provision in the Honduran constitution ... they have 379 articles divided into eight titles that are further divided into forty-three chapters. Zelaya is required to recognize and follow all of them, not just article 239.
There are seven areas that are given the same level of protection as presidential term limits. This description of their constitution is sourced to the Library of Congress:
The underlying goal of the referendum: to establish a popular vote authorizing amendment to the constitution, was seemingly prohibited by the constitution. Regardless of the question of being an attempt to extend Zelaya's time in power, the referendum was still illegal based on an equally strong constitutional prohibition. I imagine the courts stuck with the clear constitutional issue instead of getting in the weeds trying to prove Zelaya's intent at prolonging term in office.
He may well have overstepped other presidential constitutional limitations as well, 239 isn't the only article that limits the presidency ... we'd have to get deeper in the weeds to really tell.
Additionally, it seems like there is a plausible argument that the physical nature of Zelaya's attempt to undermine inviolate provisions of Title VII regarding the process for constitutional amendment (physically "rescuing" the ballot boxes and pressing forward with a constitutionally prohibited referendum) could have caused him to run afoul of Article 2 "supplanting of popular sovereignty and the usurping of power". That would be a more challenging position to argue, but it is pretty clear Zelaya had decided on a course he intended to follow regardless of court rulings on constitutional issues.
Considering it has been pointed out (by you) that an article 239 violation is not necessarily supported by the evidence, doesn't the fact that the Honduran court actions don't seem to directly involve Article 239 increase the likelihood that their actions were more solidly grounded in Honduran law and precedent than Zelaya supporters would like to admit?
July 15, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
kgb, Title VII, Chapter I, Article 347 summarizes the articles in the constitution that cannot be amemded. 239 is one of those. So I don't think it is correct to say that "there are other articles" that were allegedly violate. You may disagree, of course. You can access the Honduran at Georgetown by Googling "Honduran Constitution" and look for the Georgetown link. I went directly to "translate this page" and it is pretty clunky, but you can see what articles are what. And it isn't a very long document.
July 15, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Article 239 is one of 7 if I understand correctly. The summary mentions "several articles covering the presidency, including term of office and prohibition from reelection.." I read that to say there are other articles, in addition to the two specifically referenced. It was idle speculation ... I didn't mean give the impression I thought this to be a likely position of the Honduran courts.
It has mostly been media flacks flogging the "holding on to power" accusation. The SpanTranEnglish article I found covering the original ruling baring the referendum didn't mention this assertion either. That report implied it was a different constitutional issue. If article 239 isn't mentioned as the basis in either the court docs or contemporaneous media reports, doesn't that imply that the real issue of law is something different?
I think the real question may be the constitutionality of the proposed ballot question calling for a constitutional convention by popular vote. That the referendum was deemed unconstitutional because it was attempting to change the constitution by a process that would indeed be unconstitutional; because it would violate the articles protecting the process of changing the constitution - not because it would allow Zelaya to run again.
I was giving myself a break from Spanish to English translators for a day or two. I'll check out the quasi-literal text of the Honduran constitution tonight and track down a groovy article number to toss about if, as I suspect, the issue really seems to apply
July 15, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's another possibility, and that is that the Supreme Court finding is absurd, as one Honduran scholar wrote recently (I can't remember who it was, offhand).
But here's a link to the Supreme Court document - 86 pages long:
http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-honduran-supreme-court-authorized.html
Since it is available, I'm sure that people who are competent in Spanish will be analyzing it, so we'll hear more about it.
The blog that this link is on looks pretty fascinating, kgb. I don't know who's writing it - I can't seem to find that info. Someone named "Raj"? I don't know. But I'm going to read the blog, and I think you would enjoy it also.
July 15, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure any ruling one disagrees with is best described as absurd, no?
Thanks for the link ... I'll check it out. Using the online translators is really pissing me off (just this side of worthless for some stuff). I sure wish TPM would use some of their new investment cash to hire a bilingual reporter!
What I wonder about are Articles 373, 374 (maybe this is "347" from your above comment?), and 375. I don't see how, in light of these articles, changing the constitution using the method described in the proposed November ballot question would be constitutional. The translators are brutal ... but between Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, I'm pretty sure these strictly and explicitly limit the legal methods for changing the constitution - a popular vote to essentially scrap the whole thing and start over doesn't seem to qualify.
July 16, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What?
There was no "coup" in Honduras. What happened was that an extremely unpopular president schemed to maintain and extend his grip on power by taking actions that explicitly violate the Constitution. He was then removed from power and replaced by an interim president.
I'm no fan of Lanny Davis, but he's on the right team here. The only reason why there is such outrage in America over this is because we don't actually do anything to punish executive lawlessness here, and so we feel shown up when another country actually follows the rule of law.
Obama is flat wrong on this one.
July 14, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
may be you should do more reading;
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/neoboho/
http://www.counterpunch.org/thorensen07012009.html
July 14, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Zelaya tried to change the constitution, actions called illegal. However, Democracy Now reported that Honduras has a rather limited democracy. It is a democracy with wealth and business having most of the power. Evidently, Zelaya was trying to force a constitutional convention or action to address this governmental tyranny.
Remember the last line, the point of the essay, in the Declaration of Independence is that the people have the right, indeed the duty, to rid themselves of tyranny. Hopefully it can be done peacefully, but if not, by revolution.
Hmmm.. a democracy controlled by wealth and business.
July 14, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no.
Zelaya was not trying to change the constitution. What he was pushing was a non-binding referendum asking whether Hondurans wanted to have a vote this November on whether to call a convention to write another constitution. This would have had no effect on Zelaya's own term of office, which ends this coming January.
This idea that "Zelaya was trying to change the constitution so he can run again" is utterly untrue, but it sure has taken hold...
July 14, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually it was initially scheduled it to be a binding referendum. When the court ruled this would be illegal, Zelaya announced that he'd have it anyway and he'd get around the unconstitutionality of what the referendum proposed by calling it nonbinding ... and then proceeded to "Rescue" the ballots.
As best I can tell (this "coup" has the the crappiest factual coverage *ever*), it went down like this:
June 19: Supreme court rules Zelaya plan for a binding referendum unconstitutional.
June 20-24: Zelaya announces that the vote will be nonbinding; therefore constitutional (a questionable assertion), he orders all government workers to participate. He additionally directs the Military Commander in Chief to distribute the ballot boxes as planned and also to order all members of the military to participate.
The military commander refuses, stating that he can not carry out an order deemed illegal by the supreme court. Zelaya attempts to remove the Commander in Chief and replace him with a loyalist.
June 25(24?): The court rules Zelaya's removal of the CIC to be unconstitutional and reaffirms his position - tacitly supporting the CIC's assertion that Zelaya's order regarding pushing ahead with the referendum would be unconstitutional.
June 25: Zelaya responds by forming a mob of thousands (unconfirmed number) who subsequently overrun the Air Force base and secure the balloting materials that the military had refused to distribute.
June 26: Zelaya reiterates the order that all government employees must participate in the referendum.
June 28: The Supreme Court issues a finding that Zelaya is in violation of his constitutional responsibilities and will be removed effective immediately. The decision is relayed to the military who respond by taking Zelaya into custody. Subsequently he was removed to Costa Rica citing national security concerns and a desire to prevent bloodshed. The elected legislature met ... and after reading a seemingly forged resignation letter(?Really curious on this?) affirmed the president of the legislature to the position of President in line with the order of succession.
For better or worse ... those seem to be the facts.
July 15, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually it was initially scheduled it to be a binding referendum. When the court ruled this would be illegal, Zelaya announced that he'd have it anyway and he'd get around the unconstitutionality of what the referendum proposed by calling it nonbinding ... and then proceeded to "Rescue" the ballots.
Thank you! Give that man a prize for putting the crux of the matter simply and clearly!
As much as people want to give out white hats and black hats here, there are only various shades of grey available. Yes, I'll concede that some of the grey hats are much much darker than others.
July 15, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah. I skipped the 27th: Houndran military was deployed to strategic points throughout the country and at some borders (may have started on the 26th?). Honduras is warned against removing Zelaya by international actors (including the US).
July 15, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No, actually it was initially scheduled it to be a binding referendum. When the court ruled this would be illegal, Zelaya announced that he'd have it anyway and he'd get around the unconstitutionality of what the referendum proposed by calling it nonbinding ... and then proceeded to "Rescue" the ballots."
kgb, how can an opinion poll be a binding referendum? Under Honduran law, if the surveyed people answered "yes" that the fourth ballot box asking for a constituent assembly should be including in the November 2009 elections, three courses of action follow under the constitution: 1) 10 members of congress could call for a referendum or plebiscite on the creation of the assembly, 2) the president could make the call, or 3) 6% of registered voters could make the call. This was enacted into the Honduran Constitution in 2004
“In November Congress ratified a constitutional reform introducing rules under which a referendum or plebiscite may be held. Initiatives to be subject to direct popular vote will now have to be presented either by at least ten representatives of Congress, by the president of Honduras, or by a petition from 6% of the population”
http://libraries.ucsd.edu/locations/sshl/resources/featured-collections/latin-american-elections-statistics/honduras/19982007.html
[scroll down to November, 2004
Furthermore, as Thoresen pointed out, Zelaya's "non-binding public consultation" is legal under Honduran law, Article 5 of the Civil Participation Act.
"President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions."
http://www.counterpunch.org/thorensen07012009.html
Now why and how the court found this to be unconstitutional is a matter to be discovered, as far as I know. But clearly Zelaya thought he was legal, and the court's finding to be absurd.
July 15, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps "binding" is the wrong word, but the referendum would have given Zelaya the power to place a specific question on November's ballot regarding the dissolution of the Honduran constitution. Stating it in the affirmative, "to draft a new constitution". You seem to be focused exclusively on the procedural legality of calling the referendum. That's kind of a red-herring; nobody ever debated the legality of calling for a referendum in general.
The issue has always revolved around the constitutionality of the ballot question being proposed. Having the procedural tool of referendums does not implicitly allow the tool to be used to advance actions found to be unconstitutional. Best I can tell, for whatever reason, the courts ruled that the proposed ballot question was unconstitutional therefore the referendum attempting to bring it about was also unconstitutional.
I think you have distilled my problems with the "coup" frame in a nutshell:
Are you really proposing that the Honduran president can ignore Supreme Court rulings if he finds them absurd?
People can always be found to argue the courts got it wrong. We've seen prime examples of that in the Sotomayor confirmation - even Al Franken weighed in that he feels the recent Voting Rights Act decision was in error. Others vehemently argue that Roe v. Wade was improperly decided. Regardless, a law-based system of government requires the other branches, the executive in specific, to accept the decision and work withing the constitutional framework to find another route to accomplish the underlying national objective.
IMO, an executive who unilaterally claims the power to overrule the courts has placed himself above the law - claimed a mantle of unchecked power. How is that not insurrection ... a coup? I'm not willing to cede the point that popular election gives a President the right to define their own version of the law.
July 16, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm inclined at this point to agree with just about everything you've written, kgb. And the answer to your question is "Yes"- I think Mel could have ignored the supreme court ruling that he found absurd.
In the past couple of days I've been trying to digest as much of the political realities of Honduras as possible, and I've got to tell you, my head is spinning. But let's go back to that Library of Congress link you provided.
http://countrystudies.us/honduras/84.htm
The second graf reads:
Honduran constitutions are generally held to have little bearing on Honduran political reality because they are considered aspirations or ideals rather than legal instruments of a working government. The constitution essentially provides for the separation of powers among the three branches of government, but in practice the executive branch generally dominates both the legislative and judicial branches of government. Moreover, according to the United States Department of State's human rights report for 1992, although basic human rights are protected in the constitution, in practice the government has been unable to assure that many violations are fully investigated, or that most of the perpetrators, either military or civilian, are brought to justice. "
Now here's what I think. Mel could have ignored the Supreme Court IF General Vasquez hadn't commited mutiny and refused his Commander's order. Bad misjudgement on Mel's part, he should have seen it coming.
I think you and I may be on a fool's errand trying to find clarity by analyzing the Constitution, kgb. I think for every possible infraction that Mel committed, there are an equal or perhaps greater infractions committed by the Supreme Court, Congress and the Military.
The actual act of coup d' etat may well have issued from personal animosity between Zelaya and Vasquez, for example. "I'll teach you to try to fire me!" Anyway, I'll try to sort this out and document it when my head stops spinning.
One other thing...changing the constitution has been in the works for a long time in Honduras. It needs to be changed - it's a rotten document.
July 16, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reptile.
July 14, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lanny Davis, charter member of the "Some Democrats" Party. As in "even Some Democrats believe..."
July 15, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lanny Davis testified to congress a few days ago that there was no repression of the press in Honduras. The next day TeleSur reporters were detained and held under house arrest at their hotel.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/breaking-news/story/1138690.html
Throughout the whole coup, pro-Zelaya media has been repressed in Honduras
July 15, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah ... saying there wasn't a media clamp down is about as bald-faced a lie as anyone ever told. Can't you get in trouble for lying to congress in such an easy to refute fashion?
All the nations down South seem to do it in varying degrees, probably because of the strong association between the parties and the stations. They are literal arms of the political structure; not exactly the same as our theoretically "independent" press. I don't know which is worse, their way, or ours - where the news outlets will all agree not to report on stuff if the government asks, and politicos wrassle over placement of their operatives by throwing money at the publishers and executives in an increasingly transparent fashion.
Neither seems particularly ideal.
July 15, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amy Goodman did an excellent cover on this today.
Lanny Davis, another Clinton Super-Douche.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/15/honduras
Discussion Guests:
Dr. Juan Almendares, Honduran medical doctor and award-winning human rights activist. He is the president of the Honduran Peace Committee, as well as the past secretary of the Coordinating Committee of Popular Organizations.
Ken Silverstein, Washington editor of Harper’s Magazine. He also publishes a blog on political corruption in Washington, DC, Washington Babylon.
Andres Conteris, Program on the Americas director for Nonviolence International. He has just returned from Honduras. He worked as a human rights advocate in Honduras from 1994 to 1999 and is a co-producer of Hidden in Plain Sight, a documentary film about US policy in Latin America and the School of the Americas. He also works at Democracy Now! en Español.
July 16, 2009 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
1 - It was survey or in language even Lanny Davis can understand, a poll. A vaguely worded poll that struck fear into the monied heart of Honduras' elite. Zelaya is an idiot who may have wanted to become the Chavez of Honduras when Honduras doesn't need a Chavez. Be that as it may, what's clear is why this happened. The giant paycheck he is cashing in is coming from Carlos Flores Facusse, the man who orchestrated the coup. He is a former president and shady businessman who runs Honduras (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2009/07/whos-behind-lanny-davis-putsch-paycheck) and now doesn't have to worry about answering to anyone, not even the US.
2 - http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/08/honduras-evidence-suggests-soldiers-shot-unarmed-crowd
Somehow Lanny can defend a government that shoots it's people then lies about it. It's deplorable. I was there for an international news network and saw the young man who was shot. I went to his funeral and spoke to his father as tears ran down his face. How do you sleep at night Lanny? I suppose very well, that bed of dollar bills must be quite comfy.
July 16, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice job Lanny. Too bad the rest of the media and Obama are supporting chavez instead of democracy. If you read this you'll definitely be against Zelaya: https://www.mindreign.com/en/mindshare/World-Politics-and-Current-Events/Democracy-2c-not-Ch-c3-a1vez-2c-in-Honduras/sl34045952bp297cpp10pn1.html
July 16, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read it...it didn't move me.
Are you on Lanny's payroll by any chance?
July 16, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL :)
July 16, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink