We are again facing the fallacy of the false choice. Those who are concerned about protecting the privacy rights of Americans (including this writer) should not have to choose between protection of those rights and avoiding another 9/11 terrorist attack.
Lanny Davis | All Articles
- Send Email
- Subscribe to RSS
Lanny J. Davis counsels individuals, corporations and government contractors, and those under congressional scrutiny, on crisis management and legal issues by developing legal, media and legislative strategies that are designed to best produce a successful result for the client. He has experience in securities fraud and SEC investigations as well, and has found that utilizing such an integrated legal/media/lobbying approach can lead to quicker and less expensive settlements or even successfully litigated outcomes. Senior officials of public companies have also hired Lanny and his crisis group to defend themselves successfully against "short and distort" attacks and other market manipulations. For 25 years prior to 1996, before his tenure as special counsel to President Clinton, Lanny was a commercial, antitrust, government contracts and False Claims Act litigator (both in defense as well as plaintiff). He has argued numerous appellate cases in the U.S. courts of appeals.
In June 2005, President Bush appointed Lanny to serve on the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 2005 Intelligence Reform Act. In that capacity, he received the highest level security clearances so that he could be fully briefed and "read in" to the various anti-terrorist surveillance and financial tracking programs at the highest classified level. From 1996 to 1998, Lanny served as special counsel to the president in the White House and was a spokesperson for the president and the White House on matters concerning campaign finance investigations and other legal issues. Lanny has participated in national, state and local politics for almost 30 years. He has served three terms (1980 to 1992) on the Democratic National Committee representing the state of Maryland, and during that period he served on the DNC Executive Committee and as chairman of the Eastern Region Caucus. In Montgomery County, Maryland, he served as chairman of the Washington Suburban Transit Commission.
Lanny has authored several books and lectured throughout the United States and Europe on various political issues. Between 1990 and 1996, Lanny was a bimonthly commentator on Maryland politics for WAMU-88.5/FM, a Washington, D.C. local affiliate of National Public Radio. He has been a regular television commentator and has been a political and legal analyst for MSNBC, CNN, Fox Cable, CNBC and network TV news programs. He has published numerous op-ed/analysis pieces in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, he Washington Post and other national publications.
Lanny graduated from Yale Law School, where he won the prestigious Thurman Arnold Moot Court prize and served on the Yale Law Journal. A graduate of Yale University, Lanny served as chairman of the Yale Daily News.
Lanny is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and Connecticut and before the Supreme Court of the United States and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
What do Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul, Cory Booker, Tim Scott, Elijah Cummings, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Van Jones, John Kasich, Bob Goodlatte, Koch Industries and the Tea Party-aligned group FreedomWorks have in common?
It is a felony for a prosecutor or law enforcement official with knowledge of a grand jury’s investigation to disclose to newspapers that an individual is about to be indicted by that grand jury. It is also a fundamental violation of due process. It taints the jury pool. It prejudices the individual’s rights.
So what do the many current and pending Republican presidential candidates have to say to the country about why they should be president in these challenging times at home and abroad?
In 1999, I published a book describing my experiences as White House special counsel in dealing mostly with the various campaign finance accusations against the 1996 Clinton presidential campaign during my tenure at the White House, from 1996-1998. I recalled all the bogus controversies revved up by Republican congressional committees and described as “scandals” by the media, from Travelgate to Filegate and even one involving the Clintons’ Christmas card list (I am not making that up).
Last week, The Washington Post devoted 1,676 words to a story about donations to the Clinton Foundation — i.e., “a vast global network that includes corporate titans, political donors, foreign governments and other wealthy interests.” Yet as far as I could tell, there was not a single word reporting on any of the good works or charitable causes of the foundation.
The issue for me regarding the Brian Williams scandal is whether he made a mistake or intentionally misled people by making a claim he knew was false, i.e., lied. To conclude that a mistake is actually a lie requires a lot of proof. Otherwise, if there is a possible explanation of an honest memory mistake, I give the person the benefit of the doubt.
Many political pundits and Republicans are hyperventilating about the news that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may actually wait a while longer before making up her mind whether to run for president of the United States.
Former President George W. Bush’s biography of his father, 41: A Portrait of My Father, reminds us of the many significant accomplishments of our 41st president, George H.W. Bush, during his one term, from 1989 to 1993. These were accomplishments that many of us missed at the time, such as the fact that economy grew in the last four quarters of 1992, including more than 5 percent in the last quarter during the election based on the famous line from Bill Clinton’s campaign, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
The tendency to rush to judgment, based more on suppositions than facts, is now unfortunately common not only on the Internet and in the blogosphere but in the mainstream media as well.
Under current U.S. legal precedent, parties filing suit and their attorneys have virtually absolute immunity for any false charges made in court filings. And making matters worse, once the public court filings have been made, the media have virtual immunity to report them as “allegations” — a word often ignored when the headline is explosive and scandalous.
As a supporter of Hillary Clinton for president if she runs, I don't mind the efforts of some Democrats to urge Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to change her mind and run for president. I admire Warren, especially her recent effort to strip the "cromnibus" budget bill of a rollback of Dodd-Frank. On the other hand, she is now being described in the Senate by some Republicans as the "Ted Cruz of the Democratic Party." A major progressive Democratic House member who supported Barack Obama in 2008 expressed the same concern over the weekend on a liberal-oriented cable network. Unfair, and not good.
Last week, on Dec. 4, I helped organize a Ready for Hillary fundraiser in Montgomery County, Md., in the immediate suburbs of Washington, D.C. The organization, an independent grassroots committee, has been at work for the past year gathering millions of names and small donations in support of Hillary Rodham Clinton for president — that is, just in case she decides to run in 2016.
No matter how effective the communications skills of the key players in the Michael Brown tragedy, bitterness and anger by the African-American community across the country (shared by many whites as well) would have resulted when the decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson was announced.
Last Friday, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence committee, issued a unanimous report addressing all the major issues on Benghazi. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R.-S.C.) heads a special committee to investigate Benghazi. Naturally, the question arises: What is left to investigate?
An organization called No Labels, first established in 2010, has managed a political miracle: getting committed liberals and conservatives to come together to find common ground while maintaining their principles.
We Democrats lost the U.S. Senate on Tuesday night for many reasons. But I believe the most important reason is that we ran away from who we are and what we stand for.
Most pundits are predicting a Republican take-over of the U.S. Senate next Tuesday. I am ready to go on record against the conventional wisdom: I predict Democrats will surprise the pundits on election night and hold the Senate, if only by a 50-50 margin, with Vice President Biden breaking the tie.
So does anyone doubt that if President Obama had appointed a medical expert to become the Ebola "czar" to manage the Ebola virus crisis, many Republicans would have criticized him for not appointing someone with experience in crisis management, media and political communications? Or if the president had appointed someone with those media/political skills, they would have criticized him for not appointing a medical expert?