Alan Grayson, asshat — unfit to serve in Congress

Why did I make a donation to this political action committee? Read to find out.

I really used to like Alan Grayson.

It was nice to see that there was one democrat who had a pair of balls. Grayson seemed to stand up at times that other Democrats would cower and wimper like the typically spineless little bunnies that they are. Grayson seemed to be a man of convictions and courage — something I can’t really say the democratic party has had in a very long time. Say what you want about George W. Bush, Jesse Helms, and Orrin Hatch… at least they stood for something and stood up for it (even if that something was disgusting and objectionable).

It was nice to see a Democrat who stood for something, and who wasn’t a goddamned pussy who wouldn’t dare pick a fight.

Grayson learned, rather quickly, that when you actually have an opinion, and you don’t pull your punches, you make enemies. One of his enemies Angie Langley, a Central Florida resident who disapproves of Alan Grayson’s “policies.” From watching interviews with her, I suspect that she wouldn’t know policy from a peckerwood drunk on gin. Like many uneducated hee-haw watching bozos in America’s Wang, she has a pump at her house, attached to a tube that runs outside, up a telephone pole, and that connects to a junction box, that connects to a pipeline that runs from Sean Hannity’s penis to a hypodermic needle that deposits his urine smack in the center of her Terri Schiavo-esque empty head every morning. From that concoction of an empty void, protoplasm, and Fox News piss, she forms what she thinks are “political opinions.”

As a little tantrum, this moron with a head full of Hannity’s piss launched a website called My Congressman Is Nuts. The website parodies Grayson’s “Congressman With Guts” website, and purports to be on a mission to unseat Grayson.

Central Floridians formed My Congressman Is Nuts PAC as a response to the outrage and embarrassment within Central Florida over Alan Grayson’s liberal positions and childish approach in Washington, D.C. We could no longer sit by and accept his inappropriate behavior and leftist big government agenda. He does not represent the values of Central Florida.

To be successful, we need your help. Please join our effort by making a contribution today! Through paid advertising and grassroots activities, we will hold Alan Grayson accountable for his votes and actions. (source)

So how did the “Congressman with Guts” (as he calls himself) react?

Grayson called for the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute Ms. Langley. His letter calls upon Langley and her political action committee to be prosecuted for fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1001, to be fined “and Ms. Langley imprisoned for five years.

*cha ching*

That’s the sound of me making a donation to Ms. Langley’s cause. It wasn’t much, but I did donate before writing this piece.

Grayson claims that Langley falsely reported to the Federal Election Commission that her PAC supports or opposes more than one candidate. Grayson’s factual assertion seems to be completely meritorious. It seems clear that Langley’s website is solely devoted to getting rid of Grayson. Grayson also claims that Langley falsely represents that she is one of Grayson’s constituents. She doesn’t live in his district. That seems to be a meritorious claim too. Grayson claims that Langley could not have simply made an innocent mistake about which congressional district she lives in — as she is the head of the Lake County Republican Party. Meh, I think that Grayson presumes way too much here. If you can run for Vice President and you can’t name a single newspaper, you can be the head of the Republican Party in a district where the average IQ is about at the level of an alligator with downs syndrome that got hit by a pickup truck after drinking too much moonshine.

The thing is, I am sure that Grayson’s allegations are true. I am sure that Langley isn’t just some innocent member of the public who is fed up with Grayson. I’m sure that the Republican Party put her up to this stunt.

Nevertheless, are these sins that should be punished by FIVE YEARS in prison? I am sure that even Eric Holder wouldn’t take Grayson’s request seriously. Nevertheless, I can think of few acts that would disqualify someone more from holding public office in the United States of America than trying to get a citizen thrown in jail for expressing her political beliefs — even if she is being a bit dishonest about them. Christ, lets face it, if we were going to live by that standard, we would have to completely revamp our system of government, because the only competent politicians left outside the prison gates would be Ron Paul and Russ Feingold.

For my overwhelmingly liberal readers — look at it this way. If George W. Bush pulled this stunt with Michael Moore, you’d be out in the streets…. well, okay, liberals don’t have the balls to be out in the streets doing anything except watching one of those Peruvian flute bands and cooing about multiculturalism. But, they’d certainly be whining about it at the top of their frequency range over a nice glass of shiraz.

I truly admired Alan Grayson. I think that his policies are good for America. I think that his style is exactly what the liberals need. But, anyone who behaves with such dishonor and such disdain for First Amendment principles needs to be tossed out on his ass – no matter who it is that he’s going after. I can’t say that I will support his Republican challenger in 2010, but you can be damn sure that I’ll be donating money to his democratic primary challenger.

His letter to the Attorney General is here.

UPDATE: A reader posted this to the comments section. It is worthy of inclusion in the main article.

Having both prosecuted and defended 18 USC 1001 cases, I’m extremely skeptical of the merits of the proposed criminal charge.

From Grayson’s letter, you’d think that the FEC filing specifically claimed that Langley was a constituent. I looked at the FEC filing (you can get it by following the link to the FEC from the MyCongressmanIsNuts.com site), and it doesn’t make that specific claim.

Perhaps Grayson means to suggest that a person registering the site “mycongressmanisnuts.com” inherently involves an implied factual claim that the registrant is a constituent. I find that proposition dubious. The title is obviously hyperbole and satire; it doesn’t necessarily involve a literal claim of contituency any more than it involves a literal claim that the congressman is (a) a handfull of nuts, or (b) insane. Weak sauce.

As to the assertion that Langley lied about the entity being for the purpose of addressing more than one candidate, I’d want to see the underlying regulations, or cases construing them. I note that on the web site you can view articles that attack politicians other than Grayson, even if Grayson is clearly the focus. I’m not convinced it’s a material false statement.

At any rate, the spectacle of an elected official demanding criminal prosecution of such a petty criticism site is embarrassing. Grayson ought to be ashamed of himself — assuming that he is the very rare politician with the capacity for shame.

H/T: Zach McCormick

32 Responses to Alan Grayson, asshat — unfit to serve in Congress

  1. blueollie says:

    “I can think of few acts that would disqualify someone from holding public office in the United States of America more than trying to get a citizen thrown in jail for expressing her political beliefs — even if she is being a bit dishonest about it.”

    Sorry, but I see this more as hardball against the Republican party than someone trying to get some ignorant teabagger arrested; I am wondering if he is trying to get her to admit that this program is the usual astroturf.

    At least Rep. Grayson’s hardball tactics match his hardball speech.

  2. It may be hardball, but there are other ways to play hardball. He crossed a sacred line, in my book.

  3. Zach says:

    Marc,

    without getting all mushy, this is exactly why I respect you. This article is full of hilariously venomous jabs at those that might deserve it.

    Specifically, despite apparently liking the guy who erred, you’re solidly sticking to the principle (unlike Grayson apparently). What I see in this fact pattern is that parties are irrelevant. If someone is a schmuck it doesn’t matter whether they are liberal/conservative/dem/rep it matters whether they are upholding the principles.

    As you have pointed out time and again, the worst thing Grayson can do is to try to get someone arrested for protected speech. The second worst thing he can do if he truly finds the website offensive is to draw attention to it as he did via this request for prosecution.

    It really doesn’t matter if Langley would have a difficult time outwitting a drunk, mentally challenged roadkill reptile. What matters is that her speech is protected (at least critical elements are). Hence, even if she was wicked smart her rights (and the 1A) would be unlawfully infringed upon.

    Kudos on the rather blunt, but overall hilarious article!

  4. Ricky says:

    So, do you not agree with the law, or with the fact that Grayson is asking the AG to uphold it? Your position, frankly, makes no sense at all. If Grayson’s right on the facts, and if the facts fit the criminal law, and the criminal law has a five-year penalty attached, what the heck are you talking about? Are you trying to claim that laws against fraud are unconstitutional as applied to “political speech”? What exactly are you trying to claim, then?

    • I do have a problem with the law. But, lets just presume that the law is okay. I have a problem with an elected official calling for prosecution of a political critic.

  5. Clint says:

    I agree with what he did. She is the head of the Republican Party in Lake County who put up a slam site and falsified FEC documentation to do so including using the tax exempt donation status to do so. That violate at least a dozen election laws and if someone doesn’t call them on it then the laws are not worth the paper they are written on. It is especially important in light of the fact that this “swiftboating” tactic has been a favorite of the Republican party since Karl Rove policies were embraced on a nation-wide level.

    Selective enforcement of the election laws are what prompts the less than honorable political types to continue breaking them.

    Free speech is not protected absolutely. If you commit fraud with what you are saying or inflict damage on another person then free speech is never a defense.

    • If this happened in 2005 and it was George W. Bush doing it, the Huffington post would run red with outrage.

    • Agribusinessman says:

      Hmmm.

      Claiming that Angela Langley is head of the Republican Party in Lake County just isn’t factual.

      As of sometime before May 2008, Joe Rudderow was Chairman of the Lake County Republican Party.

      The website mycongressmanisnuts.com was launched in October 2009 (probably toward the end of the month).

      She is not in the leadership or on the Executive Committee.

      She was the Chairman for what appears to be one term prior to Joe Rudderow.

  6. […] We are prone to forming circular firing squads. Alan Grayson: many liberals love his outspokenness. But it turns out that a Republican PAC to oppose him. (fine, so far). But the PAC violated the estab…: Grayson claims that Langley falsely reported to the Federal Election Commission that her PAC […]

  7. Dan Steinberg says:

    I’m having a hard time getting wrapped around this one. You have a hard time with an elected official upholding a law that you feel is a just law? The reason you call dems wimps is because they don’t do attack-dog spin/slanders anywhere near as much as the republicans. So when someome stands up to it because a person clearly crossed the line, lying all the way, you applaud her and call him on it????

    This seems to be nothing about free speech and everything about fraud and libel. Now if he had objected to some publicly-honest person criticizing him I would see the first amemendment hypocricy but thats not what happened here. This is clearly a case of “stand up for honesty or lose because your opponent is not going to be honest and you don’t want to have to be dishonest to keep up”
    stand up for honesty…ya…I like the ring of that one :D

    • Well, I don’t think the law is a good one, but that’s not what bothers me about it.

      I wouldn’t mind if Grayson merely “stood up to it.” Lets face it, Langley raised a big $3,000. Her impact was going to be nil. So, what was he so threatened by? If he wanted to “stand up to it” by calling attention to the bullshit, then so be it.

      What bothers me is a politician seeking jail time for one of his opponents.

      Is the “fraud” really material? I don’t think so. If they need to be fined by the FEC, then they need to be fined by the FEC. You know that they won’t be, and I know that they won’t be. As far as libel goes, who has been libeled? Grayson? Because someone called him a “nut?” You’re allowed to do that in the USA, still.

  8. megan says:

    I totally agree with Dan. Your usually impeccable logic runs a bit short here.

    This woman is NOT Grayson’s political opponent…she is NOT running against him.

    She’s trying an old Republican PR hack…what we like to refer to as “Swiftboating” all while violating election laws.

    Good for Grayson for having the balls to slap her the hell down. She won’t get five years…but if she gets 6 months it may actually stop the next Rove-in-training from trying to astroturf their lies to the unsuspecting public.

    • Yeah, seems like none of my usual fans agree with me on this one. That’s okay, there’s plenty of room here for disagreement. But, I’d just ask that you ask yourself this: If the political stripes were reversed, would you feel the same way? What if Rick Santorum had pulled this kind of thing? What would you have said?

      • megan says:

        Oh right…I should oppose Grayson because — while I agree he’s honest and has the balls we’re looking for — I want to reserve and protect his right in the future to lie, cheat, and steal.

        Excellent point.

        • I think you’re missing the point.

          The point is, Americans shouldn’t need to fear jail for their political speech. I can’t break it down more than that.

          • megan says:

            I think you are missing the point. Grayson is not going after her for what she’s saying. He’s going after her because he believes she’s breaking laws and committing fraud.

            Grayson has started a few of his own website projects so he knows how to do it legally.

            His issue is that she has LIED to the government regarding the status of her PAC.

            Hardly “political speech,” that.

            • I guess that’s where we disagree. I think Grayson is going after her for what she’s saying.

              Look at it this way — what if Michael Moore happened to be fibbing on his taxes? What if George W. Bush had ordered an audit of Mike’s tax records, and lo and behold, found out that he was stiffing the government of $5,000, and thus he called for Moore to get the maximum penalty for income tax evasion?

              Sure, Mike did the crime. But wouldn’t that rub you the wrong way?

  9. von snark says:

    Sorry dude – I think you’re off on this one. He’s sending a blunt message to an organized group of shit slingers. After praising his balls now you want him to cut them off and take the high road? Let the Justice Dept decide how to handle it.

    • Yes, that’s exactly what I want him to do. We’d be raving mad if the Bush administration did this to Michael Moore. Raving. Fucking. Bat. Shit. Mad.

      The constitution is a two way street.

  10. Bill says:

    She didn’t lie about anything, but Grayson and many of you are too stupid to see that. And Grayson is a douchebag.

  11. Ken says:

    Having both prosecuted and defended 18 USC 1001 cases, I’m extremely skeptical of the merits of the proposed criminal charge.

    From Grayson’s letter, you’d think that the FEC filing specifically claimed that Langley was a constituent. I looked at the FEC filing (you can get it by following the link to the FEC from the MyCongressmanIsNuts.com site), and it doesn’t make that specific claim.

    Perhaps Grayson means to suggest that a person registering the site “mycongressmanisnuts.com” inherently involves an implied factual claim that the registrant is a constituent. I find that proposition dubious. The title is obviously hyperbole and satire; it doesn’t necessarily involve a literal claim of contituency any more than it involves a literal claim that the congressman is (a) a handfull of nuts, or (b) insane. Weak sauce.

    As to the assertion that Langley lied about the entity being for the purpose of addressing more than one candidate, I’d want to see the underlying regulations, or cases construing them. I note that on the web site you can view articles that attack politicians other than Grayson, even if Grayson is clearly the focus. I’m not convinced it’s a material false statement.

    At any rate, the spectacle of an elected official demanding criminal prosecution of such a petty criticism site is embarrassing. Grayson ought to be ashamed of himself — assuming that he is the very rare politician with the capacity for shame.

  12. rafael says:

    you are the asswipe. mslsd, the new york slimes, the washington compost and cnn are corrupt and nothing more than the media wing of the obama communist whitehouse.

  13. […] at IP and free speech issues, delivered in a smug but intelligent way. Recently he took aim at  Alan Grayson for using an anti-fraud statute to imprison the founder of an anti-Grayson website (I know. I used […]

  14. Patrick says:

    Today Grayson called Citizens United v. FEC the “worst decision since Dred Scott.”

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/01/21/grayson-on-high-court-ruling-worst-decision-since-dred-scott/

    Leaving aside Gonzeles v Raich, Bowers v Hardwick, Wickard v Filburn, Slaughterhouse, United States v Miller (1976), and the astonishingly stupid Muller v. Oregon, I’m happy with this decision if only because it protects my right to associate with my fellow citizens in calling Alan Grayson a drooling mongoloid.

  15. […] it is easy to see why this blog offends others (but I love it). Yes, at times, he attacks people that I approve of, even when he mostly agrees with their policies and they are following the […]

  16. […] the Democrat Congressman from central Florida, has been on a hot streak for bad PR.  In December, Marc broke the story about Grayson’s poor reaction to constituent outcry over his childish ant…. I truly admired Alan Grayson. I think that his policies are good for America. I think that his […]

  17. […] like Alan Grayson. They have their reasons, whether it is because they think he engaged in an abuse of power in trying to shut up a critic or because he has a European attitude towards vacations. I, on the […]

  18. […] is what a terrorist looks like I previously wrote that Alan Grayson was unfit to serve in congress. Perhaps Flori-duh is just not fit to be in the United States — because this dipshit is the […]

  19. […] about this area to actually oppose a politician (Rep. Grayson, D-FL) whose views he agrees with because Rep. Grayson went after a political critic who wasn’t following established campaign f… I see this as purity trolling (it isn’t a fair political fight if only Democrats have to […]

  20. […] one up to Jon Stewart.*  Alan Grayson, thug, censor, and one of the worst drooling mongoloids in Congress, is about to enjoy a permanent […]

%d bloggers like this: