Daily Kos

I had had a different opinion about the rights that should be accorded gays in the past, before I frequented this site in particular, others as well.

If only more people read the words that I read up to this point, admittedly way up top of the thread, I think they might understand more about what this is really about, and how it reflects many facets of our American Experience.

Then perhaps they would not be so quick to judge, and such a revelation would be no more a concern for me than it should be for anyone else.

I used to be against gay rights.  I have changed my position, thanks to you all.  Our nation is so backwards there, people are so willfully ignorant.

I understand the cost more now.  Thank you, there is much to be done to change our opinions, I can see that now.

This last thing:  no one ever seeks trust over the internet; why is that?

Whether you come out or are outed by others. Repeating lines like that disempowers people - it is  a tool of the Right.  

When I came out in 1975, it meant I would not enter the Foreign Service.  I found other things to do.  When I went to work for an AIDS organization in 1987, I knew my MBA might no longer be helpful in getting me a job in rightwing aka mainstream corporations once I had moved on from AIDS.  I found other things to do.

That said, there is a price to pay for all the benefits of coming out.  Gay people DO earn less overall than other people.  So many of us go into helping professions (how many straight white men are librarians or nurses?  how many straight black women are gym teachers?) and our political marginality is part of what keeps these professions underpaid.  

But outing our own Fifth Column - gay people who support and empower Reich-wing witchhunters - is a legitimate and praiseworthy tactic.  The forces of "inning" - the conscious and relentless media/establishment efforts to protect rightwing queers is far more powerful and destructive than the progressive forces.

Armando's outing (the publicization of it, anyway) is an attempt to silence him by the Right.  I hope he finds the congruence that Dallasdoc describes - I know it is possible.  It isn't free, but it is freeing.

As for outing someone "for their own good," that is a third and separate kettle of fish.  I've heard of careless and accidental outings, but never of outing someone "for their own good."  It would be an arrogant, stupid, cruel move.  Coming out can be a tumultuous process.  When we out Reichwingers, it is not for their own good.  It is for our good.

Thanks

Unless he was representing HRC's FORMER campaign manager in a suit against her or her campaign, or by her or her campaign against him (in which case it would be a huge and ethically indefensible COI), why would this be a conflict of interest, personally or professionally?

This example notwithstanding, though, I can easily see how an attorney who blogs on the side could get into trouble under a variety of circumstances. I can only assume that this is what's going on here, and will consequently ask no further questions nor engage in further speculation on this.

put you on the stand and interrogate you about what you may have meant in any commment or diary over the last 20 years  your can imagine the nightmare.

Mr so and did you are did you not say in a comment on DailyKos on March 30, 2003 the followingg......

If you write a great deal and take any sentence out of context you could be made to look like a lot of things you are not.

Also, vaque hypothetical stories you told, could be linked to actual clients leading to be inviolation of non-disclosure agreements.

If you worked for a client you didn't totally agree with, and then were revealed as being critical of her, the companies industry,  behind her back on an anonymous blog you could appear untrustable, or hypocritical.

Anonymouity, allows greater openess and we will loose a great deal as a community if we have to run all our diaries and comments by our lawyers, PR, and strategic staff before hitting the submit button.

For example, you don't think Hilary is a more interesting convsationalist in private then she is when the media has the tape recorders rolling?

I tell the kids when they go online. Never say anything you wouldn't be able to back up and look someone in the eye and still say. And another rule to live by, never hang onto anything you would not want to be caught dead with.

I have little experience as a sleuth and I found Armando's info page last year. Not that I had any ulterior motive, I was just curious.

Duncan Campbell. I lived in New Mexico at one time too.

New Armando

is that the home of the "Granby roll?" Or is granby hs in some other town?

and then there were the usual meta-meta-meta-diaries on troll hunters, conspirators, TU status, troll ratings because they disagreed, etc. SOSAD: Same Old "Stuff" Another Day

Troll ratings were tossed around like beads at Mardi Gras...but none of the fun of New Orleans.

A little like November / December 2004 and the Ohio diaries! ;^D

I've gotten emails from students who were researching military or political things via Google and who've seen my Kos diaries or comments pop up.  They always express surprise at the things I write here, because (1) my faculty bio contains details about my military intelligence experience and my soldier son, so they expect me to be a Rethug and (2) I play devil's advocate in the classroom so much that they have no idea what I actually believe, unless they ask me point blank.

Do you mean that there is a law that doesn't allow you to represent a company unless you are a Republican with conservative views?

If ever there was a secret war, this is it.  It used to be you were discriminated against because you were black, or Jewish.  Have the rethugs created Jim Crow around liberalism while we were sleeping?

Fuck 'em.

...and it's somewhat disconcerting... :)

from Major Danby. He was on a roll.

That one was a goody.  A smile on this sad night.  

I don't get to read DK as much as I'd like and I'm glad you linked to this so I could figure out what was going on.  And this is something I definitely am glad to know.

I trolled your comment to help hide it.

I went over to that sack of shit website (I'm going shower after this post) and read what they had to say about you.  They reposted what the troll said about you and revealed a client of the firm.  Has your firm threatened to fire you?  Has your client exerted pressure on the firm to can you?  If not, maybe you can make it through this.  I don't mean to oversimplify, I just know that sometimes, a little outside perspective helps.

to work on a few particularly sensitive issues for the federal government, though I didn't take them at the time. If I had, I can easily imagine how my posting here could have compromised my relationship with my employer and my client, and could have created serious conflicts of interest.

It's part of a larger issue, sure, but that doesn't mean that, in that situation, I wouldn't have an obligation to look out for my client's interests, and guard against a conflict.

Same as today.  Would my clients today feel I could represent them to the best of my ability if they knew my views were so contrary to theirs?  Could they trust me to take care of their very personal matters if they knew how far apart we were in political opinion?  Would my advocating action on a particular issue perhaps lead to a conflict, if the action that resulted adversely affected their interests?

To take it to the extreme:  let's pretend (don't I wish) that I lived in a state without the death penalty.  If I were a supporter of the death penalty taking capital cases, and my advocacy of the death penalty lead to a movement for a change in the law and the start of executions in my state, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?  Would I want my clients to know that I was for the death penalty while I was defending them in court?  Wouldn't there be an inherent conflict between my personal beliefs and my client's legal interests?

Ten years ago?  No.  Blogs weren't that powerful then.  

It's a whole different world now.

No one would suspect. Plus, Pootie Love is somewhat threatening if you've ever been around at the time.

The name Armando is threatening to me here but I was always riveted to your posts and will miss you terribly.

and this sucks. ... I assume you've heard about the fallout with Goldstein and his clowns going after (Eschaton regular and former "Metacomments" blogger) Thersites and his wife (and family) and outing them.

So much for "integrity," I'm afraid.

I hope that there's a way for us to avoid losing your unique and powerful voice, but if not, what Gooch said: take care of yourself, and keep fighting however you still can.

-- Stu

Armando, I am enraged on your behalf and very sad to hear this - I have been worried myself about consequences to my career if I were outed, and while I don't know who you are (and won't try to find out), I am sure you have very good reasons to worry about this.  Between this news from you, and Kos' declaration of libertarianism, I will have very little reason to frequent DKos any more.  

I echo Gooch's beautiful post - if you in fact can't hang here anymore, you will be greatly missed, but more important is that you take care of yourself and be well.

Damn those motherfuckers to hell.

but I hope you come out ahead on this one.  I hope some good comes out of it, and I hope you find a way to keep on keeping on here, somehow.

Good luck, and thanks for being the kind of person you are.  For showing it isn't just about you, it's about people you've got a responsibility to.  You're the kind of lawyer this country needs a great many more of.

Weirdly, I actually teared up reading this. I have just joined CrossedSwords and it hurts to read of your going through this. I hope there are no professional repercussions for you, and that you find a way to sneak back into blogging. God forbid if there are reperscussions, I hope that some part of the Democratic Machine could find a nice paying spot for you.

This whole thing makes me just sick. All the best to you. And we really will have your back if there's any way that we can.

is marred by who his clients are, and I could see some dirtbag actually notifying his clients and providing them with a list of choice quotes from this site.

But like I said above - Armando has been too successful, and success makes one a public figure.  I don't know how he plans on balancing this out, but I'm not sure it was avoidable.  

If you are vocal and energizing to others--e.g. politically effective--you are going to get pushback sooner or later from GOP partisans. For some it will only be crude, assaultive posts or e-mails. But for people who reach a certain notoriety, there will be attempts to identify them to see if some screws can be turned.

• This happened to Atrios (although it seemed to coincide with him shedding his anonymity of his own volition).
• This also was attempted against Billmon as a seemingly direct brownshirt tactic (one of a least a few reasons why Tacitus/Josh Trevino is regarded with utter disgust by those of us who saw the exchange).
• And if you recall, the NYT itself used the power of revealing identity against one of its readers who was a bit too vociferous in his complaints to the ombudsman's delicate ears.

There are many more, I'm sure. I've often wondered how many stories there are of people who posted at dKos who have suffered offline consequences for their opinions expressed here. Probably not too much or of minor proportions, but I'm sure it has caused problems for people.

And frankly, if a Conservative blogger with a nom de plume reached a certain level of notoriety and influence--he/she would be marked for unmasking too. This is nothing new. One can debate if this is just politics in general--but undoubtedly it is one of the favorite practices of the GOP (aka, Gutter Operating Procedures). Scrutinize your opponents, invade their privacy and take advantage of anything you find--deseminated through GOP media. If the GOP can embarass Armando or damage his professional relationships--do you really think they'll hold back out of some supposed decency? Pull the other leg, it has bells on it.

Let's not be naive, we're talking about power. Our stated goal is to politically defeat the GOP and thus render them powerless. They have no intention of allowing this to happen and already demonstrated with Clinton exactly how far they will go--beyond any limit or principle. If you have value as a political target and are vulnerable, they will burn the career/reputation/privacy of Armando, you, Clinton, Clark Kent or the dead if it will help them keep one iota more of power.

The reality is that Armando has demonstrated leadership. After you do that, your anonymity (and more) will get targeted. It's fucked up, but totally unsurprising. It is the very definition of oppo-research. And I certainly hope the DNC is noticing how well it works.

Bottom line: if you are using a pseudonym due to potential vulnerability if exposed--protect it and don't get sloppy. If you seek and attract a certain level of popular audience--and most of all leadership--you can expect that either the curious or the nefarious will soon be Googling you and every post you've written for clues about your identity.

--

Best of luck Armando. Your commitment, intelligence and focus have been real and made a difference. You're a godparent of CTG. I'll bet this circumstance will open doors, even if it forcing others closed. This is not a good-bye.

It changes the subject. (Where have we seen this tactic before?)

Secondary goal in mentioning you seems not to be targeting your client, but to be targeting your blogosphere "cred" (so to speak) because we here at dKos may not have favorable views toward your client.

I don't think Armando is leaving because of what Kossacks might think of him, but rather the reason is two-fold:

• The name of his client, regardless of who that client is, has been revealed.  His clients should be of no significance in his blogging activites.  He has a moral obligation to protect his client's privacy, and if people are going to reveal who his clients are, that is an attack on that client's privacy.
• The greater impact is not what Kossacks think of Armando, but rather what his clients might think of him, as they now have access to a record of his beliefs.  The last thing Armando needs is a client to go to his superiors and say, "We don't want this guy, look at what he said about issue X, which we believe in."

Another commenter mentioned that this whole issue is about power, and he (or she) is absolutely right.  The conservatives in this country are now afraid that they will lose their stranglehold on the country and are willing to do anything to keep it (as we saw with their attacks on Clinton).

Okay, so it's a power struggle.  Our goal, specifically, is to steer this nation away from the catastrophic and immoral principles of Conservativism.  Should we be willing to do anything, ANYTHING?!?, to save this nation?

Despite the myth of the "Angry Left" (Ann Coulter, thankfully, finally shot that myth like a dog in the street and buried it), we are the side of civility.      

Frankly, and I have nothing to prove this, I believe that a lot of the bloggers on the right wing are being paid for thier services by the RNC and affiliated organizations.  Maybe if we all work together to determine if this is true, and to reveal the extent, we might strike a blow in Armando's defense.

Armando is guilty of having an opinion.  I'm fairly sure that the right wing bloggers are probably guilty of actual crimes.

Luckily, I am a person of ill will, and I have no decency or limits.

But, I question whether outing them will have quite the same effect -- the left isn't as radical and hate filled as the right, so the consequences wouldn't be the same.

Look at what happened to those college kids that Michelle Malkin publicized the personal information for: death threats and harassment.

I hope that Armando does not get that treatment, but some on the right act so much like animals that you would think they are the missing link between man and beast that the Creationists are always saying doesn't exist.

When was the last time you heard of people on the left sending death threats because of someone's politics?

progressives. Wouldn't be the first time it wasn't clear who is operating under what flag. For example is Lieberman a Republican?