Connect with us

Opinion: NOM’s Maggie Gallagher Lying About Invalid, Anti-Gay Regnerus ‘Study’

Published

on

NOM’s and Maggie Gallagher’s Anti-Gay Lies

For this article, the definition of the word “lie” is understood to include, but not necessarily to be limited to: “an inaccurate or false statement.”  Additionally, NOM’s Maggie Gallagher has specifically been invited to provide documentation for anything I write about her that she alleges is not factual. We will publish corrections to any factually incorrect thing written here. If Gallagher wants to claim that NOM did not sponsor a rally in the Bronx where a NOM-approved speaker yelled through a megaphone that homosexuals are “worthy to death,” for instance, she should feel free to submit evidence showing that this video of a NOM-approved speaker yelling that homosexuals are “worthy to death” was not filmed at a NOM rally.

In their War Against Gays, the so-called National Organization for Marriage generally, and NOM’s Maggie Gallagher in particular, have no respect for facts or truth.

That lack of respect for truth is currently in evidence in NOM’s and Gallagher’s promotions of an invalid sociological study that NOM leaders got financed and that was then carried out by the University of Texas, Austin’s religious right wing Mark Regnerus. The main political aim of the NOM-leaders-funded, invalid Regnerus study is to demonize gay people in an election year.

NOM’s leaders sometimes lie by saying that their contempt for gay human beings has nothing to do with religious-dogma-based, bullying non-acceptance of gay people, yet NOM just made an anti-gay-rights video with the brainwashed gay-bashing zombie for Jesus, Kirk Cameron. Meanwhile here, Regnerus, connected with an anti-gay-rights church said:  “I believe that if your faith matters, it should inform what you teach and what you research,” and here, from a Notre Dame interview held after Regnerus’s conversion into the anti-gay-rights Catholic Church, we read that: “Mark alluded to the fact that his academic interest in family formation trends and processes had arisen while still an evangelical and his recent entrance into the Catholic Church has shaped his own thinking about fertility and family life.”

To repeat for emphasis, while an anti-gay-rights evangelical, Regnerus said that his faith should inform what he researches, and then after he converted to Catholicism, he said that the anti-gay-rights Catholic Church has shaped his own thinking about fertility and family life.  Then he did a study on family life with a study plan approved and funded by the leaders of NOM, a Catholic-headed anti-gay-rights organization, whose anti-gay-rights pledge is signed by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who belongs to the anti-gay rights LDS/Mormon Church.

As previously reported, over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s have signed a letter complaining of the Regnerus study’s lack of intellectual integrity.

Furthermore, the religious right, anti-gay-rights splinter group the American College of Pediatricians filed an amicus brief – relying very heavily on the invalid Regnerus study — in the Golinski DOMA case the day after the Regnerus study was published.  One month later, an amicus brief refuting the anti-gay, Regnerus-study-based brief was filed in the Golinski case. That refutation of Regnerus and the ACP brief included the fact that Regnerus made no valid comparison between a test and a control group. It was jointly filed by The American Psychological Association, the California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers and its California Chapter, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychoanalytic Association.

Make a mental note — and then consult that mental note while reading the rest of this article — that as regards the Regnerus study, there is NOM’s Maggie Gallagher championing it on one side, against all of those major medical and professional groups with hundreds of thousands of members on the other side, saying in a court brief that the Regnerus study is scientifically invalid.

Regnerus alleges that he intended to study child outcome differences between young adult children of heterosexual and homosexual parents. His published study, however, makes no such comparison, instead comparing young adult children of married heterosexual parents to those of divorced mixed-orientation parents. Regnerus’s comparison, thus, is not valid as sociology, because he made no valid comparison between his test and control groups. As Dr. Nathaniel Frank said, writing in the Los Angeles Times, Regnerus “fails the most basic requirement of social science research — assessing causation by holding all other variables constant.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s 2012 Intelligence Report on NOM – though hardly exhaustive on the topic of NOM’s anti-gay lies — is titled: National Organization for Marriage Continues to Spread Lies About Gays. 

NOM’s founder and mastermind Robert George also is a board member of the SPLC-certified anti-gay hate group the Family Research Council (FRC). Gallagher has said that she “cherishes” working with that anti-gay hate group. Many of these anti-gay groups, once the SPLC certifies them as anti-gay hate groups, say that they consider it an “honor” to be certified as an anti-gay hate group.

Yet, promulgating known falsehoods about gay people is the crucial thing that gets groups certified as anti-gay hate groups.

In other words, Maggie Gallagher has said that she “cherishes” working with the FRC, which promulgates known falsehoods about gay people.

In evaluating the endless anti-gay lies that Gallagher is spreading around — and encouraging people to believe — apropos of the Regnerus study, it is essential to understand the connection between NOM and the Regnerus study funding. The funding so far disclosed for the study came from the anti-gay-rights Bradley Foundation, where NOM’s Robert P. George is a board member, and from the anti-gay-rights Witherspoon Institute — (which receives financial support from the Bradley Foundation) — where NOM’s Robert George is a Senior Fellow. Moreover, Witherspoon president Luis Tellez is a NOM board member.

There is no daylight between NOM’s leaders and the funding of the Regnerus study, yet NOM’s Maggie Gallagher, in propagandizing about the study, never discloses her organization’s leaders’ connections to the study’s funding.

In the 2012 election year, that is very significant; Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has signed NOM’s anti-gay-rights pledge, and the take-away from the invalid Regnerus study is that “homosexuals are dangerous to children,” which is in line with NOM’s fraudulent conflation of homosexuals with pedophiles, as noted in the SPLC Intelligence Report on NOM. Gallagher herself is connected to the Witherspoon Institute; she has written anti-gay propaganda for it that aligns precisely with the anti-gay propaganda message contained in the invalid Regnerus study.

See here for Gallagher’s article Defend Marriage; Moms and Dads Matter.  Among the things that Gallagher does not address in that article are 1) the fact that most if not all foster care children are in the foster care system because they were either abandoned or abused by heterosexual parents; 2) over the last 15 years, the total number of children in the foster care system has gone down dramatically, thanks largely to gay people adopting them; 3) because those children were abandoned and/or abused by heterosexual parents, the gay adoptive parents took on heightened parenting challenges yet mainly are having success with the children they rescued and now are raising in genuinely loving homes; and 4) Gallagher does not explain why she is so ferociously campaigning to keep those gay-headed families — with the adopted children of irresponsible heterosexual parents — stigmatized and legally disadvantaged as “lesser” only because the adoptive parents are gay or lesbian.

Gallagher is using an invalid, NOM-leader-funding-arranged study — (apparently conceived to demonize gay parents) — to seek to deny rights to good, loving gay parents who adopted the neglected and abused children of irresponsible heterosexuals.

During the Republican primaries, let us not forget, Gallagher supported the arch anti-gay bigot Rick Santorum, who said that a child would be better off with a heterosexual father in jail than with two loving gay fathers in the home.

NOM’s Maggie Gallagher Tells Lies About the NOM-Leaders-Funded Regnerus Study

A few examples will serve to illustrate Gallagher’s disinformation campaign surrounding the invalid Regnerus study:

Attempting to Fool the Public With Distracting and Irrelevant Comparisons Between Sociological Sampling Methods

One of the dirtiest tricks being used to promote the Regnerus study as “superior” to all others previously done on gay parenting involves the “sampling method” that Regnerus used.

“Sampling” refers to the means by which a sociologist reaches the target demographic of their study. One can learn about the pros and cons of all sampling methods — and they do all have their limitations — yet in the end, sampling method is irrelevant to the validity of a study, if the sociologist takes the gathered data and makes an invalid comparison between his test and control groups. NOM, Gallagher and Regnerus himself are trumpeting the supposed superiority of his sampling method to those used in prior studies on gay parenting, to distract attention from the fact that Regnerus failed to make a valid comparison between his test and control groups. In a first instance, Regnerus and his funders and other supporters are alleging that he used the best available sampling method, when in fact, he did not, as I explain here.

For comprehension purposes, Regnerus used a “probability sample” and says his study therefore automatically is superior to any prior gay parenting study that used a snowball sample or a convenience sample.  What is crucial to understand, though, is that sampling method is irrelevant to the quality of a study if the study does not make a sociologically valid comparison between its test and control groups. To repeat for emphasis what Dr. Nathaniel Frank said: Regnerus “fails the most basic requirement of social science research — assessing causation by holding all other variables constant.”

NOM’s Maggie Gallagher, unsurprisingly, has been running riot in the media, misleadingly alleging that Regnerus’s probability-based sample automatically made his study superior to prior studies done on gay parenting. If Gallagher has been telling these kinds of lies about the published study in relation to all previous studies of gay parenting, in utter ignorance of the necessity for a valid comparison between a test and a control group, then she should step up now and admit that she did not realize that for a sociological study to be valid, it must make a valid comparison between its test and control groups.  Don’t hold your breath.

Here she is at the National Review, regurgitating a propagandistic letter signed by 18 Regnerus supporters affiliated with the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion. As if it were not bad enough that those Baylor Regnerus supporters did not disclose that Regnerus himself is affiliated with Baylor, they did not disclose that the Baylor ISR’s director Byron Johnson is a Senior Fellow of the Witherspoon Institute, which funded Regnerus’s study and is promoting it in an anti-gay-rights political context. The excerpt from the Baylor letter that Gallagher posted attacks prior same sex parenting research for using convenience and snowball sampling, and then says: “By contrast, Regnerus relies on a large, random, and representative sample of more than 200 children raised by parents who have had same-sex relationships, comparing them to a random sample of more than 2,000 children raised in heterosexual families, to reach his conclusions.”

Do you see what they did there, and what Gallagher is presenting as legitimate talk about sociology?  They boast of the “large, random and representative sample,” in contrast to previous smaller studies with convenience or snowball samples, but they do not tell you that it was wrong, and an invalid comparison — sociological malpractice —  for Regnerus to compare young adult children of married heterosexual parents to those of divorced, mixed-orientation couples.

Regnerus’s excuse for having done that — as though there were any scientific justification for making a sociologically invalid comparison — is that he tried to find, but could not find, an adequate number of young adult children of stable same-sex couples. What he never mentions though, is why, if he could not find enough appropriate study subjects, he went ahead and made an invalid comparison.

One thing Regnerus might instead have done with his data, was to compare young adult children of divorced heterosexual parents, to those of divorced mixed-orientation couples. He still would not have known anything about children raised by gay couples, but at least he would have made a valid comparison between children of divorced heterosexual parents and those of divorced mixed-orientation parents.

It also must be noted that Regnerus has no credibility when he alleges that he hoped to find enough same-sex-headed families for his study, but in the end simply could not. Regnerus worked through the survey company Knowledge Networks. When a potential client comes to such a company, wanting to survey small niche populations, Knowledge Networks or any similar company will first have the client do a “pilot study” which will allow them to understand how many of the desired demographic they will be able reach and survey, if and when they go ahead with their full budget for surveying. When a potential client is hoping to survey a small minority population, Knowledge Networks does not want to take a lot of money from that client while promising to deliver something it is unsure of being able to deliver; the client would then talk ill of the company to others. And, the flip side of this “pilot study” aspect of the matter, is that given adequate additional money and time, Regnerus would have been able to survey enough young adult children raised by gay parents in the desired years, but of course, the study was commissioned as anti-gay-rights political propaganda and so had a deadline for pernicious exploitation in the 2012 elections.

As though it were not bad enough that 1) Gallagher’s propagandizing about Regnerus’s sampling methods ignores that 2) Regnerus made an invalid comparison and that therefore, 3) his study is invalid, Gallagher 4) points to the convenience and snowball sampling of previous studies on same-sex parenting attempting to 5) make those previous studies seem less valid than Regnerus’s. Gallagher is not only lying about Regnerus’s study being a valid study; she is lying about past studies not being good ones in comparison to Regnerus’s.

In truth, as long as researchers note in their written studies the limitations of convenience and snowball sampling, their studies can very well be valid. All else being equal, 1) valid probability-based studies are stronger than 2) valid snowball-based studies, but, 3) a valid snowball study conclusion is always scientifically valid, whereas 4) an invalid probability-based study conclusion always is invalid.

Gallagher’s deviousness regarding sampling method propaganda on Regnerus is especially on view here, where she wrote: “Eighteen social scientists have responded to the attempt to discredit Prof. Mark Regnerus;”

Gallagher there defines the accurate criticism of Regnerus’s not having made a valid comparison between his test and control groups as “the attempt to discredit Prof. Mark Regnerus,” and she does that while quoting and linking to a propaganda letter from Byron Johnson, Senior Fellow of the Witherspoon Institute, which funded Regnerus’s study, which propaganda letter then rehashes the sampling methods propaganda, without ever mentioning that Regnerus did not make a valid comparison between his test and control groups. That is to say, Gallagher maligns Regnerus’s critics as attempting to “discredit” him, while repeating the same distracting, irrelevant, accurately discredited arguments for which Regnerus’s critics are criticizing him. In defense of a lie, Gallagher repeated a lie. Just how far would she get with such behavior, under oath on a witness stand in a court of law?

It must be observed that both Regnerus and his funders are engaging in the same irrelevant statements about sampling methods, apparently to distract from the fact that Regnerus made no valid comparison between a test and a control group. They appear to have coordinated their propaganda campaign strategy for the study. It is not credible that Regnerus does not understand the necessity for a valid comparison between a test and a control group. It would really be quite something if, having never discussed the matter with each other, NOM/Witherspoon and, in complete isolation from NOM/Witherspoon, Regnerus each started jabbering about irrelevant sampling method propaganda while neglecting to talk about the importance of having a valid comparison between a test and a control group.  That would be quite the coincidence!

As Regnerus’s UT colleague sociologist Debra Umberson says: “Regnerus’ study is bad science. Among other errors, he made egregious yet strategic decisions in selecting particular groups for comparison.”

NOM and Gallagher Appear to be Misrepresenting Their Relationship with Regnerus

In this National Review article, Gallagher alleges that “Professor Regnerus has been unusually open and transparent about how the study was conducted.” She further alleges that Regnerus did not intentionally design the study to fail, but that planned gay-headed families are “so rare that they barely turned up in the data.”

As far as Gallagher’s claim that Regnerus “did not intentionally design the study to fail,” the combination of 1) insufficient data collected from the demographic allegedly to be studied, combined with 2) the use of data collected from extraneous demographics to reach a scientifically invalid study conclusion about the alleged target demographic, certainly 3) suggests that the study plan was contrived to produce a pre-determined result convenient to NOM’s election year anti-gay-rights politicking.

In truth, furthermore, there has not been even minimal transparency in how Regnerus’s got his study plan approved and funded by NOM leaders.

According to the CV document on Regnerus’s own website,  Regnerus received a $55,000 “planning grant” for his study from The Witherspoon Institute.

Planned gay-headed families from the period covered by Regnerus’s study, the 1970s – 1990s, existed, and exist, but the first question one would ask in attempting to survey them through probability sampling would be “How much money and time will it take for me to survey an adequate number of this minority population?”

There is no evidence, so far, that Witherspoon and Regnerus used the $55,000 “planning grant” to carry out a pilot study.  A pilot study would have told them how much money and time they would need to spend, in order to survey an adequate number of young adult children of gay and/or lesbian parents. Had they done such a pilot study with their $55,000 “planning grant” money, they would not have gone ahead to fund the full study for $785,000, only to discover that they did not have adequate respondents from the target demographic.  They either would have spent more money and time to survey the target demographic, or they would have concluded that it simply was not possible to carry out the intended study, given their funding and time limitations. And, however that might be, no reputable sociologist ever goes ahead and makes an invalid comparison between his test and control groups, if he turns out not to be able to adequately survey subjects for his test group, as happened with Regnerus.

Furthermore, having given Regnerus the $55,000 “planning grant,” the Witherspoon Institute had at least this much influence over the rest of the study; if it did not like Regnerus’s plan for the study, it was under no obligation to give him full study funding.

In order to understand exactly how Regnerus and The Witherspoon Institute together agreed to proceed with a study plan for full funding  — and that is what happened, Regnerus and Witherspoon together agreed to proceed with a study plan using full funding — the public must see complete documentation of communications between Regnerus and Witherspoon regarding the study.

I first requested documentation for all communications about the study between Regnerus and Witherspoon from the University of Texas, which told me it was assembling that documentation and would have it to me shortly. When I did not receive the documentation, I inquired, and was told I would have to file a Public Information Act request for it. I did that; UT alleges that it is processing my request. However, Sofia Resnick of The American Independent interviewed me for her article on the anti-gay, religious-right fringe group The American College of Pediatric’s use of the Regnerus study in a DOMA-related court brief. Resnick told me that The American Independent made a FOIA request for documentation on the Regnerus study, but that UT told her they were withholding the documentation, because they have asked the Texas State Attorney General, Republican Greg Abbott, for authorization not to release the documentation.

Regnerus, Witherspoon and UT could jointly decide to release all communications regarding the study to the public — if they wanted to — in the interest of being, as Gallagher put it; “unusually open and transparent about how the study was conducted.”  For this article, Gallagher was sent a specific request for that documentation, to which she did not respond.

Additionally, Witherspoon appears to be misrepresenting an aspect of the study on its stand-alone site devoted to it. On that site’s Q&A page, question number 12 asks why no liberal groups funded the Regnerus study.  The response appears to be classic NOM-style trickery.  It is worth reading the response and an analysis of the response, to understand the depths of misrepresentation, i.e. lying, to which NOM/Witherspoon are sinking in the Regnerus matter. Here is Witherspoon’s answer for why no liberal groups funded Regnerus’s study:

“the Witherspoon Institute approached four different funding sources that were known to be committed to gay rights and also to have an interest in the welfare of children. They were asked to be partners by providing financial support to fund a study (the NFSS) with the proviso that none of the funding sources would have any influence regarding the design, implementation, or interpretation of the data. They were told the study would be conducted at a major research university and that the team of scholars involved in the design of the study would be evenly represented across ideological lines. All four declined.”

That answer says that the four pro-gay-rights groups were told that “none of the funding sources would have any influence regarding the (study) design, implementation, or interpretation of the data.”

Right there, we have a glaring lie; “influence” over a study includes a broad range of possible means of influencing the study. Witherspoon obviously was free not to fund Regnerus’s full study if it did not like his study design; that is a major form of influence. Witherspoon is attempting to create an impression that four pro-gay-rights organizations fled from funding the study after being told they would have no influence over the study — though that is likely not the reasons such groups would decide not to fund this study — and simultaneously, Witherspoon is lying by saying that it had no influence whatsoever over the study plan.

Moreover, how is the public even to know whether Witherspoon really approached four pro-gay-rights groups who then declined to fund the Regnerus study? Why did they decline? Do they verify that Witherspoon told them what Witherspoon claims to have told them?  I contacted The Witherspoon Institute and asked the identity of the four pro-gay-rights groups that Witherspoon allegedly approached. Witherspoon refused to provide that information. Witherspoon used the excuse that it does not disclose donor information, yet these four phantom gay-rights-groups did not donate to Witherspoon; they are not Witherspoon donors on the Regnerus study.

An e-mail was sent to Gallagher, asking her to come through with the identity of those four pro-gay-rights groups alleged to have been approached; Gallagher made no reply. She did, however, find time to take this lying pot-shot at me on The National Review. Gallagher there alleges that I say she has blood on her hand for opposing gay marriage.  I have never said that.  I do have a problem, however, with Gallagher’s NOM sponsoring anti-gay hate rallies where NOM speakers yell through megaphones that homosexuals are “worthy to death.” Moreover, as previously stated, Gallagher has often been sent offers to provide documentation showing that anything I have written about her is not factual; she has never furnished any such documentation. Our offer stands to publish corrections to any non-factual thing we may have published about her. Not to use the vernarcular, but (***crickets***).

In sum, Witherspoon is suspiciously impeding all fact-checking of its claims about four pro-gay-rights groups allegedly approached to help to fund the study. It is not credible that pro-gay-rights groups would not wish to communicate with the media regarding Witherspoon’s claims about them. Remember Gallagher’s misleading words: “Professor Regnerus has been unusually open and transparent about how the study was conducted.”

If as Gallagher is claiming, Regnerus did not “design the study to fail,” why are The Witherspoon Institute, Regnerus and UT withholding full documentation for how those parties agreed to the study plan, from their first communications about a possible study, through to the time that Witherspoon gave Regnerus a $55,000 “planning grant,” and then through to the time that Witherspoon approved Regnerus’s plan and his full study funding?

What are they hiding, if the study was not designed to fail?  You have to remember that in Gallagher’s mind, twisted with bullying non-acceptance of gay people and contempt for their rights, Gallagher would consider a study planned to smear gay people a splendid success, if it wound up smearing gay people.  Thus, when Gallagher says that Regnerus did not intentionally design the study to fail, she could within herself mean that he did not design it to fail NOM’s needs for it as political propaganda.

Gallagher Lies About Sources Making Allegedly Independent Assessments of Regnerus’s Study

Look at what Gallagher says in this National Review article: “Major family scholars such as Paul Amato . . . .  affirm that this is an excellent study, indeed probably the best study we have to date on gay parenting.” Notice, Gallagher said “Major family scholars such as Paul Amato” without naming any other major family scholar. Notice too, that Gallagher did not disclose that Amato was a paid consultant on the Regnerus study. So the leaders of Gallagher’s anti-gay-rights organization got money to pay Amato to discuss the Regnerus study, and then Gallagher points to Amato as a “major family scholar” who affirms that this is “an excellent study, indeed probably the best study we have to date on gay parenting.”

Not only was Amato a paid consultant on the Regnerus study; he has no credentials in the specific field of gay parenting, yet the journal Social Science Research, which published Regnerus’s study, published an Amato commentary on the study. What happened? Had editor James Wright exhausted the list of gay parenting experts, found that none were available to write a commentary, and so felt himself obliged to go with Amato for a commentary, notwithstanding that Amato was a paid consultant on the study?

That dubious move, by the way, is one of the reasons that science publisher Elsevier is referring Social Science Research’s publication of the Regnerus study to the Committee on Publication Ethics for review. Gallagher ends that same National Review article linking to another page by saying: “For access to the studies and to the “comments” by (sic) significant outside scholar, go here.” Again she is calling Paul Amato a “significant outside scholar” as though he had not been paid to consult on the Regnerus study and as though he had credentials in the field of gay parenting.

In a future article, I will explain why I disapprove of Dr. Amato’s involvement in the Regnerus study. However, we simply must not ignore, that when Gallagher alleges that Amato “affirms” that Regnerus produced an “excellent” study, she is being misleading about Amato’s most important take-away.  Look at what Amato wrote in his commentary on the study: “It would be unfortunate if the findings from the Regnerus study were used to undermine the social progress that has been made in recent decades in protecting the rights of gays, lesbians, and their children.”

Cherry-picking your quotes, Mrs. Srivastav?  When are you going to point out in a National Review article about the Regnerus study that Dr. Paul Amato said: “It would be unfortunate if the findings from the Regnerus study were used to undermine the social progress that has been made in recent decades in protecting the rights of gays, lesbians, and their children.”?

When?  We are waiting.

I could write up at least one dozen more Regnerus-study-related lies from Gallagher, but why bother? As I have noted before, NOM’s Maggie Gallagher is characterized by her enthusiasm for lying through her teeth while talking out both sides of her gay-bashing bigot mouth. Gallagher has even lied about gay parents under oath at a congressional hearing. As EqualityMatters put it: “Gallagher’s testimony relies on studies that have nothing to do with same-sex parenting.” Just like the NOM-leaders-commissioned Regnerus “study,” on “gay” parents, n’est-ce pas?

 

New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on Advocate.com, PoliticusUSA.com, The New York Blade, Queerty.com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

Pelosi Attack Video Release Leads to Criticism of Musk, Right Wingers Who ‘Trafficked in Homophobic Conspiracy Nonsense’

Published

on

News organizations won the release of police body cam video that shows the horrific moment when an intruder, “without warning or hesitation,” whacked Paul Pelosi, the 82-year old husband of the now-former Speaker of the House, with a hammer, knocking him unconscious and to the ground in a pool of blood, in what prosecutors called a “near-fatal” assault.

The alleged assailant is David DePape, a purveyor of far-right conspiracy theories, including QAnon and Pizzagate, COVID-19 disinformation, along with “Big Lie” videos from My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell. He is facing multiple state and federal charges.

Depape reportedly broke into the Pelosi home, screaming, “where’s Nancy?” which some including The Atlantic’s David A. Graham  have noted eerily echoes insurrectionists hunting for Nancy Pelosi on January 6, 2021, screaming, “Nancy! Nancy Pelosi!” “Where you at, Nancy?” “Where’s Nancy?”

From the moment news broke of the October 28, 2022 attack on the husband of the Speaker of the House, who told police he was there to violently attack Nancy Pelosi, those on the right, including Elon Musk, ex-president Donald Trump,  and other anti-Pelosi and pro-Trump activists, quickly suggested, implied, or even claimed Depape was Paul Pelosi’s boyfriend, or that it had somehow been an anonymous sexual tryst that went bad – despite no evidence.

READ MORE: Man Charged With Attacking Paul Pelosi Is a MAGA Cultist Who Said the Speaker Was Using ‘Fake Evidence to Spy On’ Trump

In the video, which should be watched only with extreme caution, police can be seen approaching the front door of the Pelosi home, the door opening, DePape holding Paul Pelosi by the wrist with one hand, and a hammer in the other. Within seconds he attacks Pelosi, who falls to the ground. Police take DePape down to the ground, and moaning can be heard, although it’s unclear if it is from Pelosi or his alleged assailant.

DePape told police he wanted to break Nancy Pelosi’s kneecaps and hold her hostage. Since she was across the country in D.C., he ended up fracturing her husband’s skull instead.

Despite the video, the far-right refuses to let go of its false claims about Paul Pelosi, which are hurtful not only to the Pelosi family, but to the LGBTQ community.

Just days after the almost deadly attack Donald Trump falsely claimed, “You know, probably, you and I are better off not talking about it. The glass, it seems, was broken from the inside to the out and, you know, so, it wasn’t a break in, it was a break out.”

Kara Swisher, the well-known tech journalist and opinion writer, blasted those who are ignoring the clear video evidence (not to mention the massive reporting) of the attack.

READ MORE: ‘Suicide Mission’: Pelosi Attacker Named ‘Prominent State and Federal Politicians’ He Wanted to Target

“All those who trafficked in homophobic conspiracy nonsense about this,” she wrote Friday on Twitter, “such as the owner of this increasingly shitty platform, should be ashamed,” Swisher said, referring to Elon Musk.

“They won’t be, but they are heinous & utterly lost,” she added, linking to a Washington Post article titled, “Judge releases evidence, video footage in attack on Pelosi.”

Indeed, two days after the attack, Elon Musk tweeted then later deleted the claim that “there is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye.” The Independent reported Musk, “attached a screenshot of a bogus report accusing Mr Pelosi of getting into a drunken fight with a male prostitute.”

Politico’s Sam Stein also highlighted Musk pushing the apparent falsehood: “The release of the Paul Pelosi video is a useful reminder that the owner of this here platform pushed conspiracy theories around the attack.”

Entrepreneur and programmer William LeGate, who won a Thiel fellowship at the age of 18, on Friday tweeted: “Now that the Paul Pelosi surveillance footage & 911 call have been made public, it’s time homophobic bigots like Elon Musk, Tucker Carlon, & the like to issue a public apology for spreading the ‘lover’s quarrel’ conspiracy theory.”

MSNBC executive producer Kyle Griffin made remarks similar to Swisher’s: “A lot of conservatives spread disgusting, nonsensical conspiracies about the Paul Pelosi attack — including Elon Musk. Some are still spreading them. Those people should be ashamed.”

Republican former U.S. Congressman Adam Kinzinger, linking to a Politico report on the release of the video, said, “Can we please dig up every persons tweet who made fun of this or cast doubt? This was a sick attack and politicians minimizing it suck.”

READ MORE: ‘Break Her Kneecaps’: Feds Charge Suspect Who Attacked Paul Pelosi as New Details on His Motivation Are Revealed

Salon’s Amanda Marcotte defended the release of the video with this explanation: “Seeing folks question why it was necessary to release the footage of the attack on Paul Pelosi, which is incredibly violent and disturbing. Well, a big reason is Republicans have treated the attempted murder as a joke.”

She linked to an article she wrote in early November titled, “After the Pelosi attack, Republicans have quit pretending they oppose political violence.”

Journalist and SiriusXM host Michelangelo Signorile also went after Republicans.

“The Paul Pelosi video — and the surveillance video — show the danger and brutality of the attacker,” he tweeted. “Every Republican who mocked this attack is filled with nothing but hate and bile.”

NCRM is embedding the video below, from The Associated Press. We caution watching the brutal video, which is longer than many others and includes the actual attack and the moments after. Again, we urge caution.

 

Continue Reading

News

Another Santos Financial Concern: GOP Lawmaker Claims Campaign Paid WinRed Triple the Fees It Should Have

Published

on

According to an NBC News report there’s yet another mystery swirling around U.S. Rep. George Santos and his campaign financial activity and reports.

WinRed, the right-wing fundraising processor platform created to compete with Democrats’ ActBlue, has asked the Santos campaign to correct a financial report that claims the New York GOP lawmaker paid them more than triple what it should have – suggesting the entry on his Federal Election Commission (FEC) report is erroneous.

“Santos reported paying WinRed more than $206,000 to process donations to his 2022 campaign, records show. But that amount doesn’t match up with how much money Santos actually raised,” NBC News reports.

“WinRed charges candidates a 3.94% fee for contributions made online by credit card. At that rate, Santos would have had to have raised more than $5.2 million through WinRed to warrant a $206,000 payment to the firm,” NBC explains. “Through November, however, his campaign reported total contributions of $1.7 million, including donations that didn’t come through WinRed.”

READ MORE: ‘Deliberately Deceived the Nation’: Legal Experts Stunned by ‘Jaw-Dropping’ Report on How Barr and Durham Protected Trump

WinRed would not tell NBC News how much the Santos campaign actually paid them, with the news network offering that it could be “sloppy accounting.”

But one campaign finance expert, attorney Brett Kappel, warns, “nothing that appears on Rep. Santos’s FEC reports can be taken at face value.”

This follows reports that the Santos campaign amended two filings to indicate that a $500,000 personal loan and a $125,000 personal loan, claimed to have been from the candidate’s own personal funds, was not from his personal funds. There is no information indicating what entity loaned the Santos campaign the money, or if it actually even existed.

That bombshell was followed up this week with yet another one: the FEC reports were allegedly signed by a “treasurer” who does not and never has worked for the Santos campaign. One expert called that a “big no-no,” and “completely illegal.”

READ MORE: Watch: Santos Responds to Report He Joked About Hitler, ‘The Jews’ and Black People

Continue Reading

'GASLIGHTING'

‘Deliberately Deceived the Nation’: Legal Experts Stunned by ‘Jaw-Dropping’ Report on How Barr and Durham Protected Trump

Published

on

Legal experts are now weighing in on Thursday’s bombshell, massive and months-long reporting from The New York Times that reveals, among several previously unknown allegations, that then-Attorney General Bill Barr and his special counsel, John Durham were handed apparent evidence of suspicious financial acts by Donald Trump, and proceeded to create a false public narrative that Durham’s investigation found evidence of “suspicious financial dealings” related to Trump, suggesting it was on the part of the FBI, not the president, in order to protect the president.

“On one of Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham’s trips to Europe,” The Times reveals, “according to people familiar with the matter, Italian officials — while denying any role in setting off the Russia investigation — unexpectedly offered a potentially explosive tip linking Mr. Trump to certain suspected financial crimes.”

The Times adds that “Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham never disclosed that their inquiry expanded in the fall of 2019, based on a tip from Italian officials, to include a criminal investigation into suspicious financial dealings related to Mr. Trump.”

READ MORE: Bombshell NYT Report Reveals Bill Barr’s Special Counsel Opened ‘Secret’ Financial Crimes Probe Into Trump But Never Prosecuted

“Mr. Durham never filed charges, and it remains unclear what level of an investigation it was, what steps he took, what he learned and whether anyone at the White House ever found out. The extraordinary fact that Mr. Durham opened a criminal investigation that included scrutinizing Mr. Trump has remained secret.”

Until now.

Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law expert who literally wrote the book on the U.S. Constitution, calls the Times’ report “jaw-dropping.”

“When Durham unexpectedly found evidence of crimes committed BY rather than AGAINST Trump, he and Barr deliberately deceived the nation into thinking the opposite! This deep dive by the NYT is as jaw-dropping as anything I’ve read in the past decade,” Tribe says.

Law professor and former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) Sherrilyn Ifill, one of TIME’s  2021 most influential people in the world, accused Barr of “gaslighting” the public.

READ MORE: ‘Moral Turpitude’: Trump Coup Memo Author John Eastman Now Facing 11 Counts of Alleged Ethics Violations – and Disbarment

“Every line of this article must be read,” Ifill implored. “Horrifying breaches of professional ethics, misuse of DOJ investigative resources, and deliberate lies to, and gaslighting of the public. A grotesque perversion of the appropriate role of Attorney General.”

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, the well-known MSNBC legal contributor and professor of law, also calls it “jaw dropping.”

“Jaw dropping reporting. Lots here including an explanation of why Durham’s colleague resigned: under pressure from Barr to release an ‘interim’ report damaging Clinton & the FBI as the election drew near, Durham had a draft prepared that wasn’t factual,” she says.

Andrew Weissman, the former General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who spent 20 years at DOJ, including working under Special Counsel Robert Mueller, calls Barr “corrupt.”

“Can anyone really be surprised by this?” he asks. “Barr was just so corrupt and so corrupted the DOJ.”

MSNBC legal analyst Jill Wine-Banks, a former Watergate prosecutor and the first woman to serve as US General Counsel of the Army was troubled by the picture The Times painted of how close Barr and Durham were, when special counsels are supposed to have great autonomy and not be shaded by any Attorney General interference.

“Even more troubling than Barr and Durham frequently having drinks and discussing the investigation is the fact that the only crime they discovered on their foreign trip was Italian intel about crimes by Trump,” she says via Twitter. “I want to know the status of that investigation!”

READ MORE: Republicans Claiming ‘Censorship’ Threaten to Haul AT&T and DirecTV Into Congress for Dropping Far-Right Newsmax

Some legal experts lament that despite the bombshells in The Times’ report, it appears nothing will come of it – certainly nothing from the House Republicans.

Former Associate White House Counsel Ian Bassin sardonically asks, “Surely McCarthy and Jim Jordan’s new Select Committee on ‘the Weaponization of the Federal Government’ will focus on this story and the actions of Bill Barr, John Durham and Donald Trump. Surely, right? Right?”

Wine-Banks also points to House Republicans’ new committee investigating what they claim is “weaponization” of the federal government.

“Barr’s relationship with Durham, his pressure on him to reach a certain result and their failure to follow up on Trump’s crime revealed during the investigation is what weaponization of the DOJ looks like — not what Republicans want to investigate now.”

Pete Strzok, who spent 26 years at the FBI including as Deputy Assistant Director of the Bureau’s Counterintelligence Division, and led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States election, speaks from experience.

“I can see Barr allowing the stunning amount of craziness (a gentle choice of word) described in this article,” he writes. “But does anyone in the current OAG or ODAG care about this? Durham has reported to AG Garland for twenty two (22) months now.”

“This,” Weissman adds separately, pointing to The Times article, “is all about the Trump weaponization of the DOJ – but we know that the House Rs won’t give a damn about it.”

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.