Report: ‘No Evidence’ For Hillary Clinton’s Claim DOMA Was A ‘Defensive Action’
Buzzfeed is reporting that after an extensive search of documents from the Clinton White House, Hillary Clinton’s claim that her husband’s anti-gay legislation was to stave off an even worse fate for LGBT is unsubstantiated.
Last week, in her first interview after her triumphant 11-hour Benghazi hearing testimony, Hillary Clinton sat down with Rachel Maddow for an interview. The MSNBC anchor asked Clinton about former president Bill Clinton’s anti-gay legislation, including DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, noting that much of the civil rights advances under the Obama administration has been achieved by getting rid of those laws.
Clinton said she saw it a bit differently, and made a claim that for a week now has increasingly angered LGBT activists.
“On Defense of Marriage, I think what my husband believed — and there was certainly evidence to support it — is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that there had to be some way to stop that,” the Democratic frontrunner told Maddow.
“And there wasn’t any rational argument — because I was in on some of those discussions, on both Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and on DOMA, where both the president, his advisers and occasionally I would — you know, chime in and talk about, ‘You can’t be serious. You can’t be serious.’ But they were. And so, in a lot of ways, DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further. It was a defensive action,” she insisted.
“A defensive action”?
Chris Geidner, Buzzfeed’s Legal Editor, today reports that Hillary Clinton’s claim is just not true, “based on a BuzzFeed News review of the thousands of documents released earlier this year by the Clinton Presidential Library about same-sex couples’ marriage rights and the Defense of Marriage Act.”
Geidner reports there is “no contemporaneous evidence… to support the claim that the Clinton White House considered a possible federal constitutional amendment to be a concern.”
And here’s the damning line: “There was no documented discussion in 1996 within the White House or Justice Department about any momentum for a federal constitutional amendment that DOMA was intended to prevent.”
Geidner’s report is extensive, some 4500 words, give or take, and sure to pose concerns for the Clinton campaign.
On Twitter (below), Geidner makes clear that his report is only based on the Clinton administration’s White House documents, and not conversations with lawmakers or policy analysts who might support Clinton’s claims.
A few responses via Twitter:
Great @chrisgeidner investigation showing Hillary Clinton’s current DOMA story is a revisionist concoction https://t.co/yskGiZiGwO
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 30, 2015
In which @chrisgeidner, @samsteinhp, and @jbendery convince me I was wrong about Clinton & DOMA https://t.co/oiTMqqhYkD
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) October 30, 2015
I will always view the Clinton camp suspiciously, but I do not view Bill Clinton’s 1996 position on DOMA as disqualifying Hillary in 2016.
— Josh Kruger (@jawshkruger) October 30, 2015
Â
Image: Screenshot via MSNBCÂ
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.