Nope, not buying it. That *makes * the guy who does it a “rogue” himself, by participating in both efforts. Or perhaps he isn’t really a rogue, the decision to send him there *already * constituting coordination by any reasonable definition. The 527 can have a guy in charge of making sure they’re not working with the campaign, sure, and the campaign can have their own guy making sure they’re not working with the 527, but it sure doesn’t need to be the *same * guy. If it is, there’s no way to say that isn’t coordination.
All the more reason to be aware of appearances when they do it anyway, then. If nobody talks to anybody else across the wall about what they’re doing, then no problem.
I had several floating theories for a while (Maytag man was the frontrunner, for reasons not insulting at all but amusing in nature) as to what the ::checks forum:: hell your SN meant. Now I find out in passing through a thread most of which I haven’t yet read (and probably won’t read all; partisan sniping isn’t always my thing).
I think you’re missing something. Neither side “sent him there”. They both hired a firm to advise them and make sure they were keeping their toes inbound with the new campaign finance laws. The firm assigned the same guy to both because it helps him be aware of what the players on both sides are doing instead of only seeing one side at a time. If he leans over one side of the wall and whispers a report of what is happening on the other side then he is subject to disbarment. Hell even other lawyers can’t stand a disbarred lawyer. They’re like child rapists in a prison. At best shunned, at worst… well I’ll leave it to your imagination to think of the worst that a lawyer can do.
We’re in a thousand percent agreement here. Now, tell me. How in hell do we make sure nobody talks across the wall? Trust? Heh. This is politics we’re talking about.
Enjoy,
Steven
On Preview: I’m extremely grateful, 'punha that you didn’t make the common mistake of thinking it was an abbreviaton of “meeting” or “management”. That my moniker should be so easily confused with two things which are anathema to me is one of life’s cruel ironies. I orginally selected the name about eight years ago and used it on a forum exclusively dedicated to M:tG players and there was no confusion whatsoever. Bringing it out to the real world has been interesting.
Actually, it has everything to do with the subject. The law doesn’t forbid all communications, only those that amount to “coordination.” I used the “calling about kids” example to illustrate that threshold point. My next example – which you curiously ignore – is closer to the line, and illustrates the need for gatekeepers.
The fact that both major parties use lawyers who also affiliate with 527s, each of whom have the resources to ensure they are complying with the law, creates a strong inference that such conduct is proper. I’m not raising this to damn Democrats, I’m using it to show that both parties are acting appropriately.
Except, of course, that the law does not forbid a gate. 527s and campaigns can communicate so long as they don’t coordinate. Ergo, you need a gatekeeper.
No, it doesn’t, as long as he’s just rendering legal advice and preventing cross-client coordination. As noted, a lawyer is particularly well-suited to this task because of the obligations demanded of him by membership in the bar.
It would appear that not only is the White House entirely innocent of “coordination” with the Swifties, but they are blushingly modest about their innocence!
Not that they’re hiding anything! Just that they are refusing to reveal something. That is a nuance that is inaccessible to a mind like mine own, unschooled in the fine points and definitions of a legal education. I will wait quietly to have the distinction clarified.
(Unless friend Dewey has taken my advice, and begun his training regimen to prepare for his return to the Old Country, in which instance he is, of course, entirely absolved of such…)
First of all, this is completely unrelated to the topic at hand, namely the propriety of lawyer Ginsberg’s behavior.
Second of all, if the requested information isn’t covered by the FOIA, fuck 'em. The President isn’t obligated to provide information to his political enemies (and CREW is definitely that – they self-describe themselves as partisan on their web page). If the Freepers requested information from the Clinton administration that wasn’t covered by FOIA, would you think it improper of him to decline to give it?
Third, if it is covered by FOIA, they have legal recourse. Let 'em get cracking. (I note after reading their FOIA request that the White House responded two days later, well within the statutory twenty-day period, giving them plenty of time to take whatever next steps they deem appropriate.)
Who’s dancing? I’m directly addressing the points raised. Just because you don’t like my responses, my fact-challenged little friend, doesn’t mean I’m being evasive.
Certainly not! And just because the Bushiviks won’t let you see something, doesn’t mean they’re hiding something.
After all, there could be fifty calls between Ginzberg and Perry, each and every one being solely concerned with social pleasantries and familial updates. And you just know those sneaky liberals will try to make something culpable out of these perfectly innocent contacts (Bat big brown Bambi eyes here…)
Again I ask, if Free Republic made a similar FOIA request to the Clinton administration, and the materials requested were not covered by the FOIA, would you deem it improper of the administration to deny the request? Would that denial be evidence they were “hiding something”?
The FOIA request did not include a request for contacts with Ginsberg. Do you even bother to read your own links?
I doubt many calls to Ginsberg were “solely concerned with social pleasantries and familial updates” – no one would want to pay his fees for that – but such calls would be consistent with a lawyer acting as a gatekeeper.
Give it up, 'luce. You have no facts to offer and so you’re running on pure sarcasm. There’s plenty of other things to criticize the Bushies for; this just isn’t one of them.
The record is that the guy was *already * working for Bush when the issue of “not” coordinating with the Swiftees came up. Plus, I don’t see how you can differentiate between hiring the same lawyer and hiring the same firm, anyway. There’s plenty of both around.
All that’s required is for neither side to even be attempting to do so.
Only if he gets caught doing it, and maybe not even then. There’ll always be somebody like Dewey around able to dream up a defense of some kind, relevant or not.
How? Most notably, by making sure there’s nobody on both sides of the wall to start with - the wall that has no legal gate for anybody to keep.
Let’s be absolutely clear on this point, because it seems to be muddled: Ginsberg was not an employee of either the Bush campaign or of the Swifties. He was outside counsel, meaning both groups hired Patton Boggs to advise them.
How many have expertise in this particular narrow corner of the law?
I know enough about the campaign finance law to talk on a message board, but if a client asked me to opine on its applicability, I’d have to pass – I lack the expertise to adequately represent his interests, and it’d be a violation of the rules of professional responsibility of pretty much every state for me to do so.
Easier said than done. Campaigns are big organizations. You need a way to keep your young Turks toeing the line. One way to facilitate that is to have a process in place for inquiring about the propriety of even the slightest contact between two parties. That’s where the lawyer comes in.
Do you have any reason whatsoever to believe that Ginsberg would risk his entire career over this? Hell, that Patton Boggs would allow him to risk the firm’s existence in that way? Lawyers take their duties of confidentiality very seriously, not just out of a sense of honor but also out of a keen sense of self-preservation. And if history teaches us anything, people eventually get caught.
You are proceeding from the assumption that Ginsberg is willing to break both the law and the rules of ethics when you really have no basis for making that assumption.
Oddly, and the one thing you seem unable to admit to, is that I’ve hardly “dreamed up” anything. I’m telling you that I HAVE ACTED IN THIS CAPACITY. This isn’t some theoretical exercise I’m describing. This is a common role for a lawyer to play out in the real world.
Again, easier said than done. I’ll ask again: is a hot tip on a hotel room discount impermissible “coordination” between the two parties?
And again, both parties have lawyers on both sides of that wall acting as gatekeepers. Are both parties wrong? All the high-priced legal talent they’ve asked to opine about that structure, they’re wrong too? You’re the only one who’s got it all figured out? Why aren’t you screaming about the Dem’s violating the campaign finance laws in exactly the same way as the Pubbies? Have you even considered the possibility that this arrangement might be entirely proper and above board?
The law doesn’t require an gateless wall barring all communications. Given that, a gatekeeper is both prudent and necessary.
It seems you have a penchant for making your case by narrowing the definitions. So he wasn’t an “employee”? Well, was he cashing their checks? Lot of us unsophisticated folks tend the think when you’re cashing their checks, that makes you something very much like an employee. You pick up a crack whore, give her $20 for a knob-job, and define her as a “temporary mistress”?
And then, of course, there’s that. The arrangement with the Swifties had not been entirely formalized, the unseemly subject of recompense doesn’t seem to have come up, Mr. Ginzberg hadn’t quite decided whether or not he was going to offer his assistance pro bono to this noble band of patriots, who barely had a few hundred thousand dollars betwixt them…
So advise, counselor. Is this lacadaisical approach to filthy lucre pretty much standard amongst the lawyers you hang out with?
Well, then, we have to fall back on the rudimentary principles of logic, mustn’t we? Applying those principles, I think I smell shit, you swear it could just as well be lilacs. Trouble is, while you insist you have no special knowledge, you imply some added significance to your argument due to your profession.
Me, too. So that makes us even, right?
Yeah, that gimlet eyed gatekeeper, ever vigilant, alert to even the slightest hint. Of course, if one were of nefarious intent, wouldn’t one channel such communications through such an obvious conduit? One who had entirely legitimate cover to be in constant communication with both parties? Just sayin’, is all.
.
That would give one pause, for certain, when one considers the dreadful consequences of showing too much loyalty to the Republican Party. Goes on your Permanent Record you know.
Operative word: “eventually”. And the history must, of necessity, be rather one sided, since we can’t know about the ones who aren’t caught, because, well, they weren’t caught, now were they?
You bet. I’m one partisan sumbitch. So’s Ginsberg, I’m willing to bet. How about you, Dewey? You wearing your strict non-partisan shirt today? Howzabout we accept our partisan viewpoints as a given, then you won’t have to pretend I’m a slut while you’re still wearing your communion dress, OK? That would be nice.
Please. Give me credit for the good sense God gave a goose, OK?
No. Both parties have one lawyer on both sides of that wall. The same lawyer. That’s what this is about, no?
Nope, just applying to the Supreme Court of Dewey for Permission to Harbor Suspicions. Would kinda like to have this all cleared up, but there seems to be some reluctance in that regard…
'Cause I’m a partisan hypocrite? Has that any bearing whatsoever? My head hurts, my feet stink, and I don’t love Jesus. So what?
I’m willing to consider the near certainty that I’m never going to get the opportunity to prove otherwise.
“…campaigns have to have walls, son, and men with briefcases defending those walls! Who’s going to do that? You?..”
(DeweyEsq., doing his spot-on impression of Jack Nicholson…)
No, it doesn’t. When you hire a barber to cut your hair, that barber isn’t your employee. And when a lawyer in a private law firm is retained as counsel, he similarly does not become the client’s employee.
I advise many clients on various matters. I am not their employee. Capiche?
Irrelevant, for reasons I explained earlier. The New York Museum of Natural History has a massive endowment, but many lawyers in the city still do work on its behalf on a pro bono basis.
Please do explain what is “lackadaisacal” about any of this. Haven’t you ever had a bartender give you a buyback because you’re a regular customer? Lawyers sometimes give discounts, too, you know.
I have specialized knowledge of this kind of gatekeeping role, yes. And it is commonplace. I’ve done it. And yes, that should give some additional credibility to my point, just as Quagdop’s posts on medical practice have extra credibility.
I don’t have specialized knowledge in the area of the specifics of campaign finance law. But the gatekeeping function serves the same purpose here as it does in the business environments I’m accustomed to dealing with.
Do you find what I do devious? Do you suspect nefarious intent on the part of my clients?
The Republican Party could not save Mr. Ginsberg from the wrath of the DC bar. And virtually every state makes it essentially impossible to join their bar if you’ve been disbarred in another jurisdiction. So yes, this sort of thing goes on your “Permanent Record,” but unlike the fictional grade-school file, this one has teeth.
Yes, as a matter of fact I am. It is perfectly acceptable for the Democrats to have lawyers in similar positions as Ginsberg – as indeed they do.
I’m generally conservative, but I’m no partisan hack. I don’t carry water for the Republicans when they don’t deserve it – which is why you don’t see me participating in the Swiftie threads – and I don’t attack the other side for doing something perfectly legitmate. And that’s exactly what this attack on Ginsberg is, an unwarranted assault
You didn’t actually answer my question.
Sorry, should have capitalized “Parties.” Meaning, both political parties have this type of arrangement in place.
Yeah, sure. Amazing that I’m the one providing actual analysis and professional insight, but I’m the prick. Meanwhile, you guys keep doing nothing but affecting that sarcasm-ridden more-cynical-than-thou routine you’ve perfected, adding nothing of substance to the conversation. And yet I’m the prick. Whatever, dude. What. Ev. Er.
What utter stinky bullshit you spew. Hey, Spewey! New name!
Medicine is a science that deals largely in facts; law is an art that, in general practice, tries to stay as far away from facts as possible. In any case the point of this discussion, which you haven’t touched on at all, is the mud, not the pinhead-dancing angel of the mechanics of how that mud is flung.
This only shows your utter ignorance of what it means to practice law, and insults not just me but all the other good and decent lawyers here on the SDMB – minty, Sua, Billdo, all of 'em.
No, it really isn’t. The issue in the article you linked in your OP related to the propriety of a lawyer acting in the role Ginsberg as taken, where he simultaneously represents as a client both a campaign and a 527.
The issue of mudslinging, and the accuracy of the Swifties’ claims, has been taken up in numerous other threads – threads I’ve declined to participate in, which should give you some measure of how I feel about the Swifties’ efforts.
You seem to think the unethical conduct on Ginsberg’s part is representing the Swifties at all. That is, I gather you would condemn Ginsberg’s accepting that representation even if he didn’t also represent the Bush campaign, simply because you find the client sleazy. Which I also reject: if you’re going to condemn Ginsberg for providing legal services to the Swifties, you also have to condemn their travel agent, their caterer, their barbers, everyone who provides a service to them for a fee.
Bullshit. The best lawyers are the ones who can control the way their audience hears the facts; a good lawyer is one who can tell a lie using only the truth. Not to say that’s all they do; but it’s true that such an ability is highly respected in that world.
The point I made, while linking to that article, was that such was nothing more than sleight of hand.
Um, this thread makes it pretty clear that give their claims a great deal of weight.
No; I’ve said all along that what’s WRONG with this picture is that Ginsberg compares his association with Dem lawyers who have similar associations, which is the baldest sleight of hand; pretending that the association is the issue when it is not (we seem to agree on this point at least, though I see it as a distraction from the point while you’re tunnelvisioned onto it at the expense of the actual point); the issue is that he’s associated with documented liars. If everything had been clean and above board, no one would be suggesting he was improper in associatiating with a political group. It’s only that he’s associated with THIS PARTICULAR GROUP, who tell lies and throw mud. If he’d been associated with a Klan group, frinstance, this might be clearer. As it is, you’re just going along with the Rep’s obfuscatory spin.
That’s such bullshit. Ginsberg gave himself dirty hands. He also had those dirtied hands in Bush’s pie. The barber’s politics are irrelevant, unless he also has a substantial role in policy and strategy.