Molotov

Representative Esteban Perez, House Minority Whip, R-TX wrote: Representatives of the Mountain States of America,

The most serious apparent leak in the history of our country since the Second World War has major ramifications across this republic. Not only do the Haitian Papers - of which we are all aware - suggest a level of double-dealing hypocrisy from the President that I had scarcely thought imaginable, but they also test our democratic institutions in our reaction.

I am deeply concerned by the reaction of this administration to the most serious test to public trust in our political system in a generation. Secretary Crocker's insults to the journalist of The Kansas City Star, calling him a “libelous fearmonger who strings together out of context statements and forgeries" guilty of "irresponsible yellow journalism”, demean his office and his person, and I would sincerely ask he refrain from further such statements.

So too am I dismayed that the only answer has been censorship of the aforementioned publication. Therefore I call on Congress to request the following of the government:

• Immediate clarification of the government position on these papers, and their position as to their legitimacy.
• Immediate clarification of the reasons that The Kansas City Star has been stopped from further publication of these papers.
• Appointment of an independent and respected special prosecutor to investigate the leak, and whether the Haitian Papers are genuine.
• Clarification on the administration's position on Haiti, the civil war there, and whether the leak bears any similarity to plans previously drafted.

I respect the fact that if genuine, these leaks would indeed be damaging to the plan to intervene in the humanitarian crisis and civil war in Haiti. I also respect the fact that if genuine, this leak is indicative of a testing of our relations with allies, and of the administration's credibility.

But I do not believe any of these facts would justify silence and censorship. I therefore open the floor not to a vote, but a debate on this issue.

Representative Matthew James Carpenter. House Minority Leader, R-OK wrote:I second the call for answers by my colleague. We are all aware that certain matters cannot be published for national security reasons. But frankly I have read nothing from the Star that has revealed matters detrimental to our national security in a time of peace.

I greatly respect Progressive members of this administration's opinion that these documents are not genuine. But if we do not allow the American people to see these documents, it will only reinforce the statement of the publication that they are so. The President's office branded them forgeries: but if they were, he must give proof.

The case of Near v. Minnesota has been raised. Chief Justice Hughes, in that decision, stated:

Charles Hughes wrote:"...the fact that liberty of press may be abused does not make any less necessary the immunity of the press from prior restraint...a more serious evil would result if officials could determine which stories can be published..."

Equally, I do not see from that decision how the following is considered reason to prevent publication of the Haitian Papers:

Near v. Minnesota wrote:The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government.

Nothing I have read would be, and so I must also sincerely ask that we give the American people the chance to hear the administration's view on the leak by Congress calling on - not forcing, for I believe the issue so sensitive - the government to answer these questions that are on the lips of every citizen of these Mountain States.

House Majority Leader Geoffrey Wise, IA wrote:My colleagues raise several fair points. Excellent questions, all of them...if it weren't, of course, for the question of motive."

Motive, ladies and gentlemen, is at the heart of every point of contention regarding these supposed documents. Why did our anonymous source leak the documents, real or feigned? I'll be the first to vouch for the integrity of the Vice President when he said no decision had been reached. Was it out of genuine concern for the Haitian people? Perhaps some love of the isolationism and ostracism our nation has faced since the Treaty of St. Paul? Freedom of information is a lofty goal, surely, and not a soul in this House would disagree with the right to a free press. But, if the Kansas City Star believes, and I'm assured that they do, that these documents are genuine, than that means that they must be aware that freedom of the press does not include matters of public security or sedition. And, if these documents are false, they are well aware that there are numerous laws against criminal libel. Should my counterpart from Oklahoma wish to argue Near v. Minnesota further, I will gladly point to the exact laws and the exact precedent that the court system was in favor of.

Then, of course, there's the matter of motive on behalf of the respected gentlemen from Texas and Oklahoma. Now, nobody here doubts for an instant their patriotism, and I'll defend to the death the right of my colleagues to offer constructive criticism to the Administration. But let me point out a few facts. My friend Representative Perez condemns the President's 'double-dealing hypocrisy' when it comes to looking out for the security of these Mountain States and the integrity of the national security system. Yet none too long ago, the representative, in an interview with the Dallas Morning News, calls these 'Haitian Papers' a 'diplomatic disaster'. One minute, Representative Perez is utterly concerned with the diplomatic repercussions of the Kansas City Star's slander, the next, he calls for more.

One is led to assume that the extent of this disaster goes only so far as he can use it as fodder against a President the Republican Party has had it out for since before President Stone, God rest his soul, was laid in the ground.

The facts of the matter are written in black and white. Representative Perez wasn't wrong when he called it a diplomatic disaster. And I don't know about the rest of you, but where I'm from, you don't go open the windows in a middle of tornado or start swimming in the middle of a flash flood. You have a safety plan. You go inside, get everybody to safety, and make your preparations from there. Now is the time for the Administration's safety plan to be used. Because no matter of semantic wrangling will change the truth. We are surrounded by fascism, imperialism, and crony capitalism gone wild. Whether or not these rumors turn out to be more than forgeries and propaganda, the so-called Haitian Papers will be used against us.

If raising the ire of Berlin and Tokyo's puppets in Washington and San Francisco and sabotaging our relationships with the only neighbors who don't think we're a nation of degenerates and mongoloids isn't a matter of national security, I quite frankly don't know what would constitute one.

By us, I'm not talking about the Progressive Party or the Coalition. I'm not even talking about Congress or the American government in general. I'm talking about the people of these Mountain States, the ones who elected you. The ones each and every one of you pledged to support with all your pretty speeches and fancy promises. They will be the ones harmed by the divisiveness of the Star's actions, the same divisiveness that my friends across the aisle are all too eager to instigate for a few cheap electoral points.

I have full confidence that the American people will not tolerate this any more than I will. I'll vote no on any and all further attempts by the Republican Party to drag Charles Efraim Stone's elected successor into the mud, and this government along with it, and urge my colleagues in my caucus, party, and across the aisle on both sides to follow suit.

Lastly, as for my Texan colleague's request to Secretary Crocker, I'll tell you something a farmer from Dubuque County once told me: if you can't get dirt on your hands, don't go out into the field.

Representative Cecilia Ortega, TX wrote: Truer words have rarely been spoken, Representative Wise. Indeed, while our friends across the aisle have every right to criticize not only the President but any figure in the course of their duties in this chamber, I note that I have been consistently dismayed to see that far too many of our Republican friends have done anything but put forward meaningful criticism, electing instead to an empty rhetoric of character attacks that has time and again disrupted civil debate in the chambers of Congress, as well as waging smear campaigns that have blurred the lines between their party's favorite media publications and Congressional proceedings.

While I try to give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt, I cannot in good conscience condone-whether through formal assent or silence-what this resolution put forward by our friends from Texas and Oklahoma stands for: a witch hunt, based on the 'evidence' of scandalous headline stories obviously written with the intent of excoriating leftist politicians, a hunt meant to crucify the same in the service of lowly political capital for the Republican Party, heedless of what real damage these accusations stand to do, true or not, especially when certain politicians insist on acting to the world as if these allegations are facts.

As such, I must join my friend Representative Wise in standing up for the American people, and I assure you the Progressive Hard Left Caucus agrees and will vote the same way.

As for the matter of Secretary of State Crocker, despite our friend from Texas choosing to make requests of him in a chamber where he is not normally present, one of my colleagues passed on the suggestion. Secretary Crocker requested I present the following written statement to this chamber:

Honored Representatives of the MSAmerican People,

Though I hope to keep this message to the point, I would first like to explain that I have a great respect for this chamber, and those who work in it. This includes Representative Perez of Texas: though that may surprise some, it should not. Despite his uncharitable assessment of my statements on this matter, and the questionable authority with which he supposes to judge that they are demeaning to my office, Representative Perez is known to me as a man who speaks frankly, and this is a trait I value. Were he less forward, his request would not come to my attention, and I might not have sent such a letter as this. I must apologize, on that note, that I cannot tell you these things personally, for I am likely in the midst of a press conference explaining these same things to the American public. Should you wish to compare the two statements, I believe you will find they do not contradict.

Now, while Representative Perez and his fellow Republicans are free to their opinion of me, I am at just as much liberty to point out that they are wrong. First of all, I would be remiss were I not to speak out against baseless suggestions that the State Department has been involved in some sort of power play against our nation's allies under my supervision, and I would not be fit for the office I was appointed to and confirmed for if I pitched softly to those who make such claims for the sake of selling more papers by hooking the public with lurid promises to share tales of spying, warfare, and neocolonialism.

Representative Perez and his friends seem to think that when I label the Kansas City Start has having engaged in fearmongering? This is obviously not so, given the way his friends in the media spring upon this manufactured scandal as a diplomatic crisis. The Kansas City Star charges the MSA government with engaging in a massive coverup and give every indication that they should be alarmed. It makes these claims to raise a public furor and raise interest in an extended series of articles in which these supposed truths would be revealed, which reeks of yellow sensationalism for the purpose of selling news, not of concerned reporters hoping to bring important knowledge to the people.

I suppose it might not be this part of my statement that that the esteemed Representatives object to, though, perhaps it is the accusation that these articles are filled with falsehoods written in the worst of bad faith. However, there are two possibilities that have been made clear repeatedly in the time since the 'leak': either the documents that the Star claims to have been given are forgeries, or that the writers of the Star have illegally obtained documents of importance to MSA national security and have engaged in selectively editing them to support claims of a government conspiracy.

The only leg that the Star has to stand on, were it to be argued that they have not lied to the MSAmerican people, is that it is hard to claim a libel has been published when half of your conspiracy-theory articles are not claims but extremely pointed suggestions that individuals have committed wrongdoing. Whether or not it could be taken to court by the letter of the law does not change that they have violated the spirit of such laws and have acted highly unethically as they undertake character assassination using weasel words and publish supposedly damning excerpts of government memos that only they are allowed to see.

But I am sure we should take the editorial staff of the Star at their word, Representatives. While we are at it we might also recall that of course an international communist conspiracy set fire to the Reichstag in the 1930s, that the Queen of the Commonwealth is actually a sapient lizard, and that the Germans and Japanese have met little green men on the Moon.

Or is it not my claim that the Star is lying to the American people which has brought such strong Republican objection? Maybe it's that I referred to the journalist Peter Harding and his editors as irresponsible? I would be surprised if it needed to be pointed out why they were irresponsible, but since it is possible, I must explain: because based on documents of unproven veracity, the Kansas City Star has alleged that the Mountain States of America intends to break from its allies and carry out neocolonialism against one.

The right-wing press and Rep. Perez have repeated this claim as if it were truth, despite having only these unverified and perhaps unverifiable claims to base their statements on, in the same partisan manner as the Star clearly motivated by political animosity towards the executive branch of the United States. To make claims that place such strain on the relationship between the MSA and her allies even when false, as Rep. Perez himself has noted, without the requisite evidence is the height of irresponsibility to your people.

Well, I suppose it is possible that I bear these lies in silence or offer only timid words of disapproval, as Rep. Perez would suggest. But that is not the man I am. I could no more not speak out against this greed and power-motivated smear against the American people and their government than I could have by silently instead of serving when the Reich was marching towards Chicago. Those who dedicate their lives to serving the American people do not have the privilege of silence. Furthermore, it is my duty to be candid with my counterparts abroad, especially among our allies. I should remind you that despite the attempts of the Star and their friends in Congress, we still have allies, and I have to assure them of the MSA's commitment to our mutual freedom and democracy, Rep. Perez. It does not demean myself or my office to firmly and without doubt state the truth where others lie to our people and friends abroad.

Now, if Rep. Perez, or any member of Congress wished to actually discuss further issues with my conduct, I expect that they would expedite a response by actually arranging to speak with my staff or myself, which at no point happened, as it would certainly be less of a hassle than me writing a letter to Congress, which I do not plan of making a habit of. After all, Congress has more important duties to the American people than arguing the wisdom of statements I make. I can only hope that my colleagues in both houses are more candid in the future as opposed to complaining about me to their peers.

Thank you for your time, and I wish every one of you good health and luck in serving the needs of the MSAmerican people

Sincerely,

-Joseph Crocker, Secretary of State of the Mountain States of America

Representative Arthur Robertson wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen,
Congressfolk,

Over the last few weeks we've been subject to an attack, mounted using corporate media and begun by as of yet unknown conspirators, against this President and his administration. Unlike previous attacks, however, this time the enemies of this government made the mistake of going not only against Paul Roux-Johnson but against the whole Coalition cabinet. The result? The solidarity and mutual aid you are seeing on this floor.

Let me be clear so the Right-Wing knows: this government will not give in to the threats and bullying of undemocratic corporate media terrorism, and we will weather this storm and find out who carried out this vile attack against not just our government but our very nation. It's true: the publication and irresponsible propagation of this false-flag black-type psychological operation has made our country less safe now than it was before. Fabricating and publishing this "information" is not only libelous but unpatriotic.

The fact that this was all a hatchet job by enemies of our republic is evident from the very wording of the attacks: gone are the accusations of our President being "unelected" or in the pockets of Fascism. The Republicans have retreated to a position where their only talking point is to point to these false accusations, which will too be refuted. One has to wonder what will happen when this all blows over and the Right-Wing has firmly established itself as the political force of lies, of media terrorism, of libel, of psychological operations against the MS American public and completely discredited in every arena but their own grand, and baseless, declarations.

One has to wonder seriously why these lies have "come out" just now, right when the administration was beginning to work, proving its efficiency to the Mountaineer peoples and establishing a strong record. You wanna talk suspicious, Carpenter? How's this for suspicious: the administration had expressed its interest in working with the people of Haiti and was just beginning to send aid, as well as looking after the refugees who had landed a our shores; meanwhile, a Socialist bill proposing sending them aid still languishes on the Senate floor, blocked by the Republicans when not ignored outright. The Right-Wing never had any interest in helping out the hurricane victims. You wanna talk suspicious? The very moment a Progressive Senator suggested MS American aid workers be afforded an armed escort, the Republicans already began to accuse us of interventionism.

If we want to talk suspicious, and are to remain truly vigilant against attacks on our Republic, then it might do to notice that all of this nonsense has given the USA the perfect excuse to invade Haiti. This is how the Far-Right operates, ladies and gentlemen: it fabricates a truth when it can't otherwise get what it wants.

The Socialist Party stands united with the President and points out to all the aspects of the defamation campaign, from the supposed OSS conspiracies to the presence mining interests to the attacks on our allies, as evidence of the ridiculous nature of a lie entirely fabricated for the purpose of eliciting scandal. Secretary Crocker has already spoken to this chamber, and in the following days the Republicans shall continue to witness the power of a united and strong Coalition united in truth.

Hopefully this will give them some pause before continuing down this line.

Representative William Hughes, TX wrote: Fellow Representatives, we, as you may understandably see, have a crisis of faith on our hands.

These Haitian Papers have done much to destroy the faith that the American people have in this government, and it's intentions. Surely they are asking themselves why the government is even remotely contemplating hostile action against our allies, especially given the state of our government. This is something that we cannot allow to endure, and the actions I see here do not give me much to take solace in.

Ladies and gentlemen, I worked as a reporter for several years, I made a career out of it, and I can say that the current state of affairs is unacceptable. The Kansas City Star is a newspaper well recognized for it's accuracy and fairness in it's reporting, and I a sure that they would not simply publish this without evidence to back it up, and at least minimal efforts to confirm that that evidence is not a forgery. To claim otherwise is to do a disservice to the Star, and to cast doubt upon the tradition of the news media in the MSA as a whole.

At the same time, the government has not helped through their opposition to this. The people of America deserve the truth, and thus far the government has only seen fit to issue blanket denials, while the other esteemed members of Congress here block this Resolution. Why be so adamantly opposed to it, what are you all so afraid of? To reject this is tantamount, in the eyes of the people, to admitting that there is some truth to this.

I, for one, will not not stand by and allow the good name of fellow journalists to be assaulted, and the American people to be used and lied to, and I support this resolution

Representative Dirk Lefebvre, LA wrote: Respectfully, I must disagree with my fellow Congressman and what he is saying.

This scandal has rocked the government, and the nation, to it's core, if I can be allowed to be a bit grandiose. One could question the timing of it as well, coming so soon after the assassination of President Stone, and the rise of a Socialist Presidency. Indeed, in that regard it may be easy to see that this was done b some hostile entity, eager to sow discord within the MSA, and to destroy the trust between us and our allies. And when we are fighting each other, and lashing out in witch hunts, they can move to crush the democracy we have worked to maintain for so long.

Now, I'm not saying that the Kansas City Star didn't have the best intentions in mind, or that they are not a noteworthy standard in reporting. However, one cannot overlook the possibility that the people who leaked these papers, did so with the intent to sow discord, and potentially had the position to make these documents, that could be indistinguishable from official documents. It is also possible that, in today's media age, the Star may have rushed in their actions, eager to get a major scoop before someone else. In this case, the Star is then guilty of nothing more than being lied to, or just willful negligence. They are Americans like the rest of us, and I'm sure they didn't intend to aid our enemies more than to help the public.

At this time, I stand with my previous colleagues, in solidarity with the Administration, and urge this body to not give in to fear, or panic, but to trust that the Administration knows what it is doing, and that this scandal will soon resolve itself with these Papers shown to be the falsehoods that they must be. To give in to histrionics and finger pointing accusations only helps the fascists.

Representative Matthew J Carpenter, R-OK wrote:Frankly I am appalled at the previous comments made by some in the administration. I welcome Representative Hughes's comments, however. They stand truer than ever before after this second leak, apparently more serious and closer to the President.

Truth is what the American people and Congress need, from Roux-Johnson, his former colleagues, and this administration.

Therefore I urge you all to vote for this Representative Perez's call for clarity and transparency.

12 Republican conservative votes IN FAVOR

Representative Floyd A Hust wrote:
Initially, I was very hesatent to vote in favor of this resolution, I felt that it will lead to a witch hunt and that the papers might indeed not be genuine. But following the continued mistakes by the administration and the outright threat issued by our neighbors on our security, not to mention the proof shown by the press. It is now an unmistakable fact that the papers are real. I have decided, that this resolution must be supported by me. I would like to also address my colleagues and motion for them to rally in favor.

12 Republican Moderates vote in favor.

Representative William Hughes, TX wrote:Fellow Representatives, it saddens me to see that the fears and beliefs that I had held turned out to be more true than I had thought. With this most recent release, little doubt can remain that those who supported the Administration have lost what legitimacy they may have had in this matter, and the American people deserve an answer as to why President Roux-John, in all appearances, supported hostile action in Haiti.

These recent events have been discussed, and as a result the Progressive Moderate Caucus now stands in solidarity, previous divisions having been resolved.And I would like to thank those who stood here in defense of the Press, and the right of journalistic freedom that has defined us as a nation.

10 Progressive Moderate Votes IN FAVOR

Representative Joshua Johnson (Minnesota, R-L) wrote:
As a journalist, and a supporer of the free press, there can only be one answer to this - considering the circumstances - very mild resolution.

4 Republican Liberal votes IN FAVOR.

Representative Freeman, TX wrote: The current administration is a disgrace to this nation. The American people deserve answers.

5 Neo Conservative Votes IN FAVOR

Orval Scott, PC wrote:The Progressive Conservatives believe this positive step for our Democracy to take, and will therefore support this resolution.

6 Progressive Conservative votes in favor

Senator Allan Clayton wrote:As was stated in the House, this resolution is frankly lighter than subsequent Congressional action that may be deemed necessary. But in a bipartisan, transparent manner, this resolution would answer questions the MS American people all are asking; Senators, this delicate issue must be resolved and this must pass through the Senate as a first step. I therefore move this bill before the Senate, it having passed the House.

• Immediate clarification of the government position on these papers, and their position as to their legitimacy.
• Immediate clarification of the reasons that The Kansas City Star has been stopped from further publication of these papers.
• Appointment of an independent and respected special prosecutor to investigate the leak, and whether the Haitian Papers are genuine.
• Clarification on the administration's position on Haiti, the civil war there, and whether the leak bears any similarity to plans previously drafted.

3 Republican conservative senators IN FAVOR

Senate Majority Leader Nathan Hanlon, TX wrote: In spirit, I support this resolution. Even were it not for President Roux-Johnson's increasingly erratic behavior, the fact of the matter is that recent additional leaks have indicated that-no matter who is responsible for the Haitian Papers-something sinister is afoot.

In practice, I have objections to this resolution on multiple levels: the way this resolution was rushed back into discussion and out of the House after breaking revelations came to light, for one. I have since met with my House colleagues listed in the register as having voted against it, hoping to determine their reasons. Overall, I heard two main reasons: the first is that they felt it was potentially inappropriate to step into this matter while it was still the subject of court action. The second, and by far the most overwhelming in the objections noted, was fears that our Republican colleagues were attempting to turn this into a witch hunt.

Now, Representative Hust, in his statements to the House, mentioned his previous hesitation to back this resolution in that chamber due to his own fears of a witch hunt. I do not think his fears were unfounded: while the reports issued by the Star indicate that this was a wide-reaching conspiracy, these new leaks indicate that not only is any anti-Haitian plot far narrower but I am led to believe, it possibly involved government officials in place prior to the election of Charles Stone.

Senator Clayton, you speak of bipartisanship, and maybe you believe that the House was not simply whipped into a frenzy and set to supporting the wide-ranging "fishing trip" investigation that Representative Carpenter has made it abundantly clear he and Representative Perez wanted, with no changes despite the changing nature of our collective knowledge in this terrible affair. Quite frankly, you're free to believe that if you want, though I find you mistaken-I think it clear that a witch-hunt mentality is exactly what is brewing, and I can only hope those of us can exercise the moderating function that it was created for, though the fact that some of my colleagues across the aisle seem intent on gaslighting the rest of us, and adamantly decrying that it does not go far enough when it was in fact drafted from the crassest of knee-jerk reactions.

But clearly a simple vote against this bill is not what is needed-only leaving people in the dark and fueling this troublingly reactionary mentality among my fellow Congressmen. No, what is needed is to make it clear that this resolution is not a blank check to drag anyone the least bit associated with the current president to be seized and dragged into the court of public opinion.

Therefore I propose the following amended resolution:

• Appointment of an independent and respected special prosecutor to investigate the leak, and whether the Haitian Papers are genuine.
• Immediate Arrangement for a tripartisan House Committee hearing investigating the legitimacy of the Justice Department filing for an injunction on the Kansas City Star, and where this order came from.
• Immediate arrangement for a tripartisan House Committee to hear expert testimony on the authenticity of reports by the Denver Post.

It is clear that of utmost importance is actually determining the authenticity of the claims being thrown about, and of the facts that are known, what action is available to this Congress in response. Apart from the call for a nebulously defined "government" and "administration" to make statements, given the President and multiple administration officials have already made statements on the subject that was called for by Representative Perez when submitting this resolution, there is really no statement of just what he or this resolution's backers think would be gained from this. If he expects all of this individuals to suddenly have a new story, it is doubtful that this will occur. If he hopes to see the President or someone else perjure themselves under oath, then calling for a "clarification" is unlikely to get him that. This should not be taken as a suggestion by my colleagues to miss the point of warning against witch hunts and propose dragging the president or a whole slew of administration officials, or passing acquaintances of Mr. Roux-Johnson into testimony.

In summation, we do indeed have a duty to the American people to find the truth, ladies and gentlemen. We also happen to owe it to them to find that truth in a calm and measured way, without falling into hysterics. We owe it to them not to engage in rational debate rather than emotional manipulation and deception. We owe it to them not to declare their representatives excommunicate from further discussion for daring to act according to the information currently available to them at the time, rather than allowing them to come to modified conclusions based on new information. Most of all we owe it to them to at least try not to go into investigations without preconceived notions, which is the absolute antithesis of the justice our Founders guaranteed to all Americans.

So I encourage my fellow Senators to act with calm reservation and move towards the goal of finding truth, not confirming suspicion, and to consider this amended proposal.

Senator Zachary Goldman, Missouri (R-L) wrote:Ladies and gentlemen, my gut feeling tells me to reject Senator Hanlon's proposed amendment. It tries to silence whistleblowers, and put power over the investigation into partisan rather than non-partisan hands.

3 Republican Liberal votes AGAINST.