Tareq And Michaele Salahi are still refusing to testify about their gate-crashing exploits -- so House Homeland Security Committee is preparing to issue subpoenas on Wednesday to compel their appearance, according to Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.).
The committee's ranking member, New York Republican Pete King, is also planning to push for a subpoena of Obama social secretary Desiree Rogers -- despite the opposition of the White House and most Dems on the committee.
"Clearly, hearing from the Secret Service is only half the story," King says, "We need to hear from the White House too."
A call to the Salahi's attorney, Leslie Maria, wasn't immediately returned.
Rep. Peter King spoke his mind this morning during Homeland Security Committee Hearings. He wasn't too happy about White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers not being allowed to testify reason cited "Separation of Power".
Valerie Jarrett discusses Obama's Job Summit. She also defends the Obama White House's decision not to allow Social Secretary Desiree Rogers to testify on Capitol Hill.
If White House social secretary Desiree Rogers survives this week's withering attacks over her role in last week's state dinner security breach, she'll have gotten by with a lot of help from her friends in the West Wing.
As a House committee opened hearings Thursday on how two uninvited partygoers were able to enter the White House grounds and shake hands with President Barack Obama, top presidential aides delivered a clear message to critics of this favored staffer: Back off.
In a White House not known for its tolerance of staffing errors, Rogers has been the beneficiary of an unprecedented show of support from senior administration officials. A former corporate executive from Chicago, Rogers has known the Obamas for more than a decade and seems blessed with a status that may shield her from the fate of departing White House counsel Greg Craig or Louis Caldera, the Military Office head who was canned for a botched Air Force One photo op.
Rogers's office starting taking heat last week after it was reported that the White House did not station staff members at the security checkpoint to help the Secret Service screen guests at the state dinner for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, as has been customary in previous administrations. When the House Homeland Security Committee invited Rogers to testify about how Tareq and Michaele Salahi managed to reach Obama unimpeded, the White House declined to make Rogers available and said its internal report on the incident would suffice.
"We think we've answered the questions fully," senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, a close friend of Rogers from Chicago, said on ABC News on Thursday. "We think it's important to have a balance and have the White House staff able to have confidential conversations with the president and his team without appearing before Congress."
For the second day in a row, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that the administration had no intention of making Rogers available for lawmakers' questions, brushing off the charge by Rep Peter King (R-N.Y.), the Homeland Security committee’s ranking member, that the administration was "stonewalling" the congressional probe.
"There's, I think, a pretty long history of ensuring that White House staff can provide advice to the president and do so confidentially," Gibbs said.
Acknowledging that White House staff members have testified at congressional hearings before, Gibbs said the current probe should not require a level of cooperation reminiscent of investigations into the Watergate and Whitewater scandals or the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"I don't think even Peter King would have the audacity to, in some way, put the Salahis in the trifecta of Watergate, 9/11 or some of the financial dealings," Gibbs said. "If that's the case, then maybe I have been here and just haven't quite seen it all."
Though an internal White House report unveiled by deputy chief of staff Jim Messina on Wednesday concluded staffers "did not do everything we could have done to assist the United States Secret Service" at the state dinner, Gibbs also offered a strong endorsement of Rogers in his Wednesday briefing.
"The first family is quite pleased with her performance," Gibbs said.
The unequivocal statement of support contrasted sharply with the White House's treatment of other staffers who have stumbled on the job. While Rogers isn't the first White House aide to take hits from the Hill, she may be the first to do so with such ferocious support from her superiors.
When Caldera, a former Army secretary, created a media firestorm last spring by authorizing an Air Force One flyover of lower Manhattan, there was no similar sympathy.
"Mr. Caldera took responsibility for this. I think it's been characterized that the president was furious upon learning of this decision," Gibbs said on April 28, dooming Caldera for an incident analogous to last week's security breach in its freakishness and its unsettling resonance in the post-Sept. 11 era.
This fall, when speculation grew that Craig might be on his way out as White House counsel, Gibbs offered only carefully parsed support for the embattled lawyer, telling a reporter who asked if Obama had confidence in his counsel: "Greg Craig is in the president's office every day as part of a small group of senior advisers that meet with him daily."
Even if it's breaking internal precedent, the administration's pushback against Rogers's critics hasn't convinced all members of Congress that the social secretary was clear of blame in last week's security lapse, however. The vice chairwoman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), told POLITICO on Thursday she was troubled by the apparent oversight by White House staff.
"It's always been my experience that the White House — either social division or legislative division, in the case of when Congress people are coming — are always at the front gate," Sanchez said, adding that she had not yet reviewed the White House's internal report. "I mean, come on, even Wal-Mart has a greeter."
And while the White House expressed doubt that King would keep up his assault on Rogers's performance, the outspoken New Yorker showed no sign of rhetorical retreat in the House hearing.
Calling Rogers's absence "an affront to our committee," King declared: "For our committee to work with the White House, there had to be an element of trust. They have breached that trust."
King and other conservatives also continued raising questions about the legitimacy of the White House's argument that Rogers's attendance at a hearing would violate the separation of powers. The social secretary's job, they said, does not involve the kind of confidential and sensitive relationship with the president that previous administrations have cited to block staff testimony.
"It's essentially saying that anybody who works at the White House is immune from being compelled to testify in front of Congress, which is much further than we ever went," said Bill Burck, a former deputy White House counsel under President George W. Bush. "It doesn't make a lot of sense to me as a principled decision."
But despite some members' frustration with the White House reticence, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) announced Thursday he would not approve a subpoena to compel testimony from Rogers, whom Thompson said he viewed as a secondary player in the incident.
If the White House's citation of separation of powers rankled some, the move is not without defenders.
Jack Quinn, who served as White House counsel during the Clinton administration, said the White House was justified in preventing Rogers's testimony, arguing: "The separation of powers issue is real, and it is important."
"As for Ms. Rogers," he added, "I do not know her, but I do know that it is not her job to ensure the security of the White House and the president. What went amiss at the state dinner should not be laid at her doorstep or that of her staff."
On the night of the Obamas' first state dinner, White House social secretary Desirée Rogers glided past the rope line of press and photographers at 6:53 p.m., pausing to boast, "We are very excited . . . everything looks great." Little did she know that the evening would end up tarnishing her vaunted reputation as an overachieving perfectionist.
Virginia socialites Michaele and Tareq Salahi managed to get past Secret Service, proceed into the dinner -- uninvited, the White House says -- and pose for pictures with VIP guests and shake hands with the president. Now questions have been raised over whether Rogers, whose office drew up the guest list, was so busy basking in the limelight that she failed to notice what was unfolding in the shadows.
On Thursday, a House committee wants answers from her about how this could happen. A key question: Was anyone from Rogers's office staffing the front gate? Even though Secret Service has accepted full responsibility for the security lapse, Rogers also has indicated that none of her staff was present when the Salahis arrived. As a result, her managerial style is under scrutiny. And her Hollywood persona, fairly or unfairly, could prove to be the most damning evidence of all.
Rogers -- the point person for the high-profile, high-security, high-stakes diplomatic gala for the Indian prime minister -- was dressed in a pale peach gown from the avant-garde Japanese design house Comme des Garcons. It was the sort of attention-getting dress, with its translucent sleeves and strands of pearls encased in layers of tulle, that proclaimed the wearer a fashion savant.
"Just because she has this job, it's not going to make her a worker bee," says a friend who did not want to be identified in order not to offend. "She's glamorous."
That Tuesday night, everything seemed to go off without a hitch. The day's rain had ended and the mist dissipated. The tent, which was actually an elegant pavilion, was breathtaking with chandeliers and enormous urns brimming with magnolia branches. The table settings -- granny-apple green and violet -- were romantic. And the entertainment -- the National Symphony Orchestra, Jennifer Hudson, A.R. Rahman -- went over big, with Hudson even receiving a standing ovation. The worst complaint seemed to be that the evening went on a bit too long, with the president's toast coming nearly an hour late. Still, it seemed as though Rogers, in her first grueling, high-pressure test as social secretary, had passed with flying colors.
"Desirée is very exacting, very detail-oriented. She absolutely knows how to entertain in an elegant, classy fashion. She definitely know what she's doing," says her friend Judith Byrd.
Although the state dinner was Rogers's responsibility, with its myriad moving parts, she was on the official guest list, along with other Obama intimates from Chicago, such as her ex-husband John Rogers, Marty Nesbitt and his wife, Anita Blanchard. Instead of remaining behind the scenes, like a discreet stage director, Desirée Rogers had a seat at the most exclusive dinner in town. She was not the first social secretary to be seated at a state dinner, although others typically pulled up a chair only after they'd mastered the role.
"Having observed Desirée that evening, she sat for a total of about five minutes," says Capricia Marshall, former Clinton social secretary and now the U.S. chief of protocol. "She worked around the clock; she did what she needed to do."
But this was the Obama administration's debut. And it was particularly complicated to pull off. The event had been moved from the State Dining Room, which holds about 130 people, to the tent, which could accommodate nearly 400. Rogers might have been confident, but she was not an old hand.
In recent years, social secretaries had always quashed their own public profiles, demurred from seeking the limelight, in service to their position and in deference to the first lady. Indeed, the names of the most recent social secretaries -- Cathy Fenton, Lea Berman and Amy Zantzinger probably ring no bells outside of Washington circles. Those who have more prominent profiles such as Ann Stock, who worked in the Clinton administration and now at the Kennedy Center, and Letitia Baldridge of the Kennedy years, waited until their post-White House years to step into the spotlight.
No one with a clipboard and walkie-talkie was standing sentry at the southeast gate when the Salahis arrived, identifying themselves as guests, according to the White House. Such velvet-rope vigilance is common everywhere from third-tier nightclubs to Seventh Avenue fashion shows and celebrity-drenched parties. And there's the matter of former White House staffer Cathy Hargraves, who predated the Obamas as in-house guest-list guru and abruptly quit in June, according to Newsweek, because she had been stripped of much of her responsibility by Rogers.
There was a new social sheriff in town and, for better or worse, she was one like no other.
The 50-year-old Rogers arrived in Washington this year to great fanfare, no small amount of it of her own making. She entered the East Wing in a whirlwind of media exposure. She was featured in the glossy pages of Vogue -- beating the first lady's appearance in the fashion bible by a month. For a profile in WSJ, the Wall Street Journal's slick magazine, stylists outfitted Rogers in luxury fashions from Prada and Jil Sander and she posed in the first lady's garden tossing a flirtatious smile over her shoulder.
Early in her tenure, Rogers made a trip to New York City during February's fashion week. She sat in the front row of runway shows such as Donna Karan and smiled for the flock of photographers who descended on the striking Obama gatekeeper with her pixie cut, stylish wardrobe and high-altitude heels. She dabbled in a world of hipsters and art scene know-it-alls in her attempt to bring a contemporary gleam to the White House. And she seemed to thrive on all the attention. She has come across as a big-picture manager, not one focused on details.
That's in contrast to her reputation at Peoples Energy. There, says her former boss Thomas Patrick, she was so intent on learning the customer relations business from the ground up that she put on a hard hat and went out into the field with the workers who managed the pipes.
None of this was surprising to longtime friends who knew her from her Chicago days, when she was a mover and shaker in the city's high-culture society circles, and who worried that Rogers was putting herself out in front of the public too fast and too furiously. They warned her of the ways of Washington, its desire for discretion, and urged to keep her profile low. In the nation's capital, no one need know whether the social secretary wore Nina Ricci or Halston, just that she was appropriately clothed.
But Rogers has never been an introvert. The New Orleans native has waved to the crowds from a perch atop a Mardi Gras float. In Chicago, she was known for her eclectic mix of guests at her dazzling parties. She has stood up to dance by herself in cocktail bars, as friends sat by and watched in amusement. She is a coquettish life-of-the-party.
She came to the White House having known the Obamas for two decades, an introduction precipitated by her ex-husband, who played basketball with Craig Robinson, the first lady's brother. Desirée Rogers was a prolific fundraiser for Obama's presidential campaign and had donated to his Senate run, though she did not contribute to his early campaigns for the Illinois state legislature.
Of all those inside the Obama inner circle, she is closest to Valerie Jarrett. Rogers, Jarrett and Linda Johnson Rice of Johnson Publishing, which owns Ebony magazine, were the three musketeers in Chicago, profiled by a local magazine as a fearsome threesome. It's the connection to Jarrett that is Rogers's protective cocoon as she straddles the line between the East Wing and the West.
"All this talk about Desirée being lifelong friends with the Obamas is bunk. She's there because of Valerie," says someone who has known Rogers for years but didn't want to be identified so as not to upset her.
Rogers is having to negotiate a new relationship with the Obamas, one made difficult by her own heat-seeking personality. She arrived at the White House as a friend and peer of the first couple. But her own social stature and wealth exceeded that of the Obamas for many years. Long before their ascent, she was a star in Chicago society, running with the city's elite.
"She and her former husband, and then she alone, were very important social figures in Chicago. She belonged to all of the A-list clubs and charities and certainly had a great understanding of how that world operated," says Patrick, retired chairman of Peoples Energy. "She was my tutor in that world."
The Obamas were the nice couple from the South Side. She was a cut above. And now she has a job in which she is expected to serve at their pleasure.
Rep. Peter King speaks his mind this morning during Homeland Security Committee Hearings. His statements regarding this serious, potentially dangerous situation were absolutely correct. In the role of White House Social Secretary Desiree can't be so caught up in Entertaining she forgets about Pres. Obama's Safety. 3 Secret Service Agents had to "take a bullet" for Desiree. Was this right? I don't think so. This was certainly a MAJOR Faux Pas! Thus its sometimes better to not give your friends jobs of high status. Remember former FEMA Director Michael "Brownie" Brown from the Bush Administration? Yeah!
Former Pres. George W. Bush: "Brownie your doing a heckuva job".
Crashers refusing to cooperate? The Salahis have been invited to appear before House lawmakers, but declined because they already cooperated with the Secret Service. A Morning Meeting panel discusses.
The head of the Secret Service asserted Thursday that the security breach at last week's White House state dinner was an aberration and President Barack Obama was never at risk. Mark Sullivan said three uniformed officers have been put on administrative leave.
The chairman of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, said the country is fortunate the affair didn't end in a "night of horror."
Appearing before Thompson's panel for questioning, Sullivan acknowledge mistakes were made and that the Secret Service must have a "100 percent" performance record.
Thompson, D-Miss., also said that Congress needs to talk not only to Tareq and Michaele Salahi, the couple who got in without invitations, but also to White House social secretary Desiree Rogers. All three have declined to appear. Thompson said he is likely to authorize a subpoena for the Salahis to testify. And the top Republican on the committee, New York's Peter King, said if Thompson doesn't subpoena the White House social secretary, King will.
King accused the White House of "stonewalling" in not permitting Rogers to appear. He said he thinks the White House is either afraid of something or doesn't want to take any heat for last week's incident.
Thompson said at midday that the Salahis could be cited for contempt of Congress if they continue to shun the committee's request that they proceed. He said he has asked staff to prepare subpoenas for the pair, and said "my door remains open." King indicated he would continue to press for Rogers to appear as well. The two appeared to differ on whether Rogers should be subpoenaed.
Thompson said at the outset: "This hearing is not about crashing a party at the White House. Nor is it about wannabe celebrities." He said the purpose is to better protect the president.
The Salahis have been trying to land a part on a Bravo reality show, "The Real Housewives of D.C.," and were filmed by the TV show around town as they prepared for the White House dinner.
"We're not concerned about agency embarrassment," Thompson said. "We're all fortunate that this diplomatic celebration did not become a night of horror. ... We must dissect every fact ... and after we do these things, we need to give thanks that no lives were lost," he said.
Said Sullivan: "In our judgment, a mistake was made. In our line of work, we cannot afford even one mistake."
"I fully acknowledge that the proper procedures were not followed," he said. " ... This flaw has not changed our agency's standard, which is to be right 100 percent of the time."
Thompson asked Sullivan what went wrong.
"Pure and simple, this was human error" in which normal security protocols were not followed, Sullivan said. The breach was not caused by poor screening technology, he added.
The Secret Service chief said the investigation so far has found three people from the agency's uniformed officer division responsible for the security breach and all three have been put on administrative leave. He added that the agency is still reviewing what security protocols weren't followed.
"What we find is if the protocols are followed, we would not run into this situation," Sullivan said.
Asked whether there was a risk posed to people attending the dinner for the visiting prime minister of India, Sullivan said he was confident there wasn't.
Sullivan said there was no threat to Obama, noting that "last week we took him to a basketball game, and there was 5,000 people sitting around the president."
In response to a question from Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., he said Obama had not had an extraordinary number of threats against his life, contrary to her assertion, and said that Obama had received no more such threats at this point in his term than his two predecessors.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs earlier this week described both Obama and his wife, Michelle, as angered by the incident.
Attending a White House event shouldn't be like "going to a bigbox retailer the day after Thanksgiving," Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., told Sullivan.
Asked by King if the pair would have been able to penetrate the White House if a representative of the White House had indeed been present for clearance assistance, the Secret Service chief replied, "It would have helped."
From now on, the White House has said, someone from the social office will be present to help the Secret Service if questions arise.
On the eve of the hearing, the Salahis' publicist, Mahogany Jones, issued a statement addressing why the couple would not appear before Congress.
The Salahis believe "there is nothing further that they can do to assist Congress in its inquiry regarding White House protocol and certain security procedures," the statement said. "They therefore respectfully decline to testify."
Jones said the couple's information makes clear they broke no laws, that White House protocol at the dinner "was either deficient or mismanaged" and that "there were honest misunderstandings and mistakes made by all parties involved."
The White House also took some responsibility for the foul-up. "After reviewing our actions, it is clear that the White House did not do everything we could have done to assist the United States Secret Service in ensuring that only invited guests enter the complex," Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff, wrote in a memo to staff Wednesday.
Still, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs cited the separation of powers and a history of White House staff not testifying before Congress in explaining why Rogers, herself a guest at the dinner, wouldn't be coming.
A senior White House aide, Valerie Jarrett, defended Rogers' refusal to appear, telling a network news show Thursday morning that executive staff members have been allowed to testify to Congress only in rare circumstances in the past.
Jarrett said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that there was no need for Rogers to attend the hearing and answer questions because "we think we've really answered the questions fully."
Copies of e-mails between the Salahis and a Pentagon official have clouded the couple's claims that they were invited to the state dinner honoring the visiting Indian prime minister.
The Sahalis decline an invitation to attend a Homeland Security Committee hearing just like the White House allowed Desiree Rogers to do. A Subpoena may be next. However by not allowing Desiree to appear what type of "Transparency" example is that? Wasn't "Transparency" one of Pres. Obama's campaign promises?
Valerie Jarrett discusses Obama's Job Summit. She also defends the Obama White House's decision not to allow Social Secretary Desiree Rogers to testify on Capitol Hill.
Congress just found the one spotlight the Salahis would rather stay out of. The AP is reporting that the couple known for crashing the White House state dinner Nov. 24 has decided against accepting the House Homeland Security Committee's invitation to the hearings being held on the state dinner incident tomorrow.
They may not have a choice, however. FishbowlDC reported that Homeland Security Committee chair Rep. Bernie Thompson (D-MS) said he'd subpoena the Salahis should they decline his invitation to appear.
Committee ranking member Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called for the Salahis as well as White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers to testify at tomorrow's hearing investigating the events surrounding the Salahis' entrance into state dinner uninvited. Today, the White House declined to make Rogers available for the hearings, citing separation of powers.
Updated | 10:22 p.m. The White House on Wednesday invoked the "Separation of Powers" to keep Desiree Rogers, President Obama’s Social Secretary, from testifying on Capitol Hill about how a couple of aspiring reality television show celebrities crashed a state dinner for the prime minister of India last week.
And the couple will not testify, either, according to a statement released late Wednesday by a public relations firm.
The statement says that the Virginia couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, have provided to the Secret Service and to the ranking members of the House committee conducting the hearing “all relevant e-mails and cellphone records that detail communications with a White House official,” and can do nothing else to help in the inquiry.
That evidence, the statement says, shows that no laws were broken, that White House protocol “was either deficient or mismanaged” and that there were “honest misunderstandings and mistakes made by all parties involved.”
Earlier Wednesday at his regular briefing with reporters, Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said Ms. Rogers would not testify. “I think you know that, based on separation of powers, staff here don’t go to testify in front of Congress,’’ he said. “She won’t — she will not be testifying in front of Congress.’’
Mr. Gibbs also said the flap over the unauthorized intruders has prompted the White House to change its procedures; from now on, a representative of the social secretary’s office will be stationed at Secret Service checkpoints for major social events in case questions arise. The White House deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, conducted a review and issued a directive to the staff.
“After reviewing our actions, it is clear that the White House did not do everything we could have done to assist the United States Secret Service in ensuring that only invited guests enter the complex,’’ Mr. Messina wrote in the memo, posted on the White House web site late Wednesday afternoon. “White House staff were walking back and forth outside between the check points helping guests and were available to the Secret Service throughout the evening, but clearly we can do more, and we will do more.’’
The memo was the first admission by the White House of failures on the part of its own staff, and it came as scrutiny intensified on the social office and Ms. Rogers, its director. The House Homeland Security Committee is conducting a hearing on Thursday into the security lapse; Representative Peter T. King of New York, who is the senior Republican on the panel, had wanted Ms. Rogers to testify and criticized the administration for not allowing her to be a witness.
White Houses have often tried to prevent top advisers to the president from testifying on Capitol Hill; the Bush administration worked assiduously to prevent Karl Rove, the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, from talking to lawmakers under oath about the firing of federal prosecutors. That sparked an intense fight between the Bush administration and Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Now, it is the Republicans’ turn to balk. Mr. King on Wednesday called Ms. Rogers’ decision not to testify “stonewalling” that would cause an “unnecessary confrontation with Congress.”
“I don’t want the Secret Service to be taking the hit here, what went wrong was the responsibility of the White House,” he said, adding, “for them not to be here just raises real questions.”
The director of the Secret Services, Mark Sullivan, is the only witness confirmed for tomorrow morning’s hearing. Even before the Salahis’ public relations firm released its statement, Mr. King said he thought it would be unlikely that the couple would appear at tomorrow’s hearing.
“They’d be crazy to testify,” he said, after meeting with the lawyers. “Their story, if they testify, would just not hold up.”
He said the couple has switched legal advisers from Paul Gardner, an entertainment lawyer, to a powerful Wall Street firm, Dewey & LeBoeuf.
The office of the committee’s chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, would not comment on the couple’s apparent decision not to appear.
Already the glamorous and successful Ms. Rogers – she possesses a Harvard M.B.A. and was a powerful social player in Chicago before joining the Obama White House — is taking a hit in the press for being more interested in showcasing herself in fashion magazines than in the traditional, behind-the-scenes role of the White House social secretary.
During the White House briefing, Mr. Gibbs answered a series of questions about Ms. Rogers’ role as the social secretary:
Q. Has there been any concern about Desiree Rogers’ performance prior to this instance?
Mr. Gibbs: No.
Q. No one has questioned the president or told the president that she is a very last-minute person, poor planner?
Mr. Gibbs: No, I think you — you all have been to and seen, either whether you’re part of a pool, whether some of you’ve been to receptions, the remarkable work that they have done in pulling off a lot of events here. The first family is quite pleased with her performance, and I’ve heard nothing uttered of what you talked about.
Q. Well, what about the issues of her being in fashion spreads early on in the administration? Did you put the brakes on that? I mean, that is — it’s been raised. It’s now public. It’s — you know, you saw it in the magazines, her pictorials. You saw her on the cover of –
Mr. Gibbs: There’s a — I get Sports Illustrated in my house.
The brouhaha over how the Salahis managed to talk their way into the dinner has been a major distraction for the White House at a time when Mr. Obama is trying to focus on the economy, health care and the war in Afghanistan. At his briefing on Wednesday, Mr. Gibbs finally cut off the questions, declaring, “I’m going to get back to weightier topics, like 98,000 men and women in Afghanistan.’’
WASHINGTON — Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee may have trouble keeping the promise she made at Michael Jackson's public memorial for a House resolution that "forever" honors the late pop star.
Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, took the stage Tuesday at the Staples Center in Los Angeles and hoisted a framed copy of the resolution, embossed with a gold seal. The measure will be debated on the House floor, she said.
For that framed, embossed resolution to be completely legit, it must first get past some opposition.
Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who called Jackson a "pervert, child molester, pedophile" in a video he posted on YouTube this week, vowed Tuesday to do "whatever I have to do" to oppose honoring Jackson.
Without mentioning King by name, Jackson Lee noted at the memorial that Michael Jackson was acquitted of child molestation charges. She blasted critics who "don't understand the hearts of entertainers" and "don't know how they heal the world on behalf of America."
"We understand the Constitution. We understand laws and we know people are innocent until proven otherwise. That is what the Constitution stands for," Jackson Lee said, clutching the framed resolution in front of her shiny white suit.
Her legislation, House Resolution 600, lists several charitable acts by Michael Jackson over his long career and proclaims him as an American legend, musical icon and world humanitarian. He is, Jackson Lee said, "someone who will be honored forever and forever and forever and forever and forever."
In the House, non-controversial resolutions honoring a person who has died or carried out a noteworthy accomplishment normally move quickly from committee to the House floor and then pass on a voice vote. The Michael Jackson resolution, introduced June 26, is awaiting action in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which Jackson Lee is a member and King is not.
An opponent could ask for a recorded vote, which then requires a two-thirds majority for passage. So far, Jackson Lee's resolution has just one co-sponsor, Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif.
Jackson Lee hosted a 2004 meeting in her Capitol Hill office that brought Michael Jackson together with ambassadors to the U.S. from African countries. At the time, Jackson was considering a tour to raise money to fight AIDS. However, he was also facing child molestation charges and was unable to leave the country without court permission.
Even so, Jackson was greeted by screams, applause and flashing cameras.
Jackson also visited Iraq veterans at Walter Reed Hospital while in Washington.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
