This just in: Bush's lawyer is a slimeball

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@lissener

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.

This is still bullshit, and even if true is at best only applicable to litigation and the use of the rules of evidence. And since the SDMB lawyers I mentioned above are all litigators, the fact remains that you’re still calling them professional liars (or are you instead saying they aren’t good lawyers?).

But Ginsberg isn’t litigating. He, like me, is acting in an advisory capacity. Your utterly false slur on the profession is even less applicable in this instance.

@lissener

The point I made, while linking to that article, was that such was nothing more than sleight of hand.

Except they aren’t slight of hand. IN THE ARTICLE, Ginsberg was being criticized as facilitating “coordination.” He made the entirely valid point that if his role amounts to coordination, then so does the role undertaken by his Democratic counterparts. That isn’t subterfuge, it’s a direct response to the charges being levied at him.

The campaign finance laws do not forbid “coordination” only with sleazy groups. It forbids coordination with ALL 527s. If Ginsberg is facilitating coordination, so are his Democratic counterparts. If the Pubbies are breaking the campaign finance laws, so are the Democrats. And THAT is the criticism that Ginsberg was responding to, and thus his response was perfectly responsive.

@lissener

Um, this thread makes it pretty clear that [you] give their claims a great deal of weight.

No, it doesn’t, because I don’t.

Please explain how you can possibly conclude as much. I’ve said repeatedly in this very thread that I’m no big fan of the Swifties. Defending Ginsberg’s role in advising both the campaign and the 527 is not the same as defending the claims made by the 527. So please, explain how you reach the conclusion that I give their claims any weight at all.

@lissener

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.

No, that isn’t the issue, and we don’t agree on that.

The issue was whether Ginsberg was facilitating coordination with a 527. That’s the charge he was responding to. Did you even bother to read the article you posted as your OP?

@lissener

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.

It isn’t obfuscatory spin. The Dems are bitching about coordination with a 527. Read your own fucking goddamned article.

@lissener

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.

Please do tell upon what basis you claim Ginsberg had “a substantial role in policy and strategy.” Ginsberg is not a political strategist; he is a lawyer with expertise in the area of campaign finance and campaign regulation. He is simply providing a service, legal advice, which is no different than any of the other services provided to political campaigns. He is being asked, essentially, “what do we need to do to comply with the law?” Answering that question is a politically neutral role, just like the barber.

Indeed, his politics are irrelevant to rendering that advice. I could provide campaign law compliance advice to Democrats if they saw fit to hire me (and if I developed sufficient expertise in the field to advise them). So could Ginsberg. A liberal Democrat lawyer could easily advise Republicans on that topic. Of course, you can’t advise both Democrats and Republicans at the same time, because those clients’ interests are adverse to one another, and thus that really is a conflict of interest. But one’s personal politics need not be involved in your ability to give advice.

[ElvisL1ves]

Dewey, here are a few of the ways in which you’re being a prick here:

1. Basing an entire “rebuttal” upon a definition of a word which wasn’t used by anyone but yourself, and would be irrelevant if it were:

*Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves
The record is that the guy was already working for Bush when the issue of “not” coordinating with the Swiftees came up. *
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.

[quote]
Note that I said “working for”, not “employed by”, although someone less prickish might have noticed that before going to the fucking dictionary. Ginsberg was “working for” both the campaign and the 527. Got it? Or do you want to keep harping on something that’s not only irrelevant but in your imagination? Perhaps we can overlook your insistence that improper use of capitalization somehow negates the substance of a post, though - or we could, if the topic of this one weren’t your prickishness. Feel free to reply any time if you ever get over it, though.

2. Continuing to attempt to lecture on the role of a gatekeeper, despite refusing to acknowledge that there is no proper role for a gatekeeper when coordination is barred. Someone less prickish than you might not be be so ridiculous as to assert that one might be needed in case someone in one group was to ask for a hotel recommendation from the other. That’s all you have left for a “proper role”.

527s and campaigns can communicate so long as they don’t coordinate.

If there’s no permissible coordination, there’s nothing other than those social pleasantries to legally communicate. Got it now? Gonna address the damn point instead of avoiding it and blaming everyone else for being so stupid?

3. Asserting special knowledge you somehow also admit you do not possess:

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.

Amazing that I’m the one providing actual analysis and professional insight.

Maybe you ought to bone up on it a little before you try to convince anyone else you really do know enough even to post on a message board, knowhutimean?

I could go on, but that’s enough to start with.

Where are all the other lawyers on the board, ya know? The ones who can’t resist a law thread? The ones who normally jump in to “clarify your remarks” if you really are right but are once again letting your extra-short fuse get the better of you? Not here. You’re on your own, in case you haven’t noticed yet.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@ElvisL1ves

Dewey, here are a few of the ways in which you’re being a prick here:

1. Basing an entire “rebuttal” upon a definition of a word which wasn’t used by anyone but yourself, and would be irrelevant if it were:

Note that I said “working for”, not “employed by”, although someone less prickish might have noticed that before going to the fucking dictionary. Ginsberg was “working for” both the campaign and the 527. Got it? Or do you want to keep harping on something that’s not only irrelevant but in your imagination? Perhaps we can overlook your insistence that improper use of capitalization somehow negates the substance of a post, though - or we could, if the topic of this one weren’t your prickishness. Feel free to reply any time if you ever get over it, though.

I’m not sure how you got the notion that my “entire rebuttal” was based on that one minor clarification. I thought a reader of the thread might be confused and think Ginsberg was an actual employee, so I clarified that he was not. If you go back to the post in question, you’ll see that I continue to respond to your points; it isn’t like that one clarifying item was the sole content of my post.

Indeed, if you want to talk about being a prick, I’d take a look in the mirror: you just took an item that I clearly labled as made strictly for clarity and transformed it into some kind of attack on your position.

@ElvisL1ves

2. Continuing to attempt to lecture on the role of a gatekeeper, despite refusing to acknowledge that there is no proper role for a gatekeeper when coordination is barred.

I refuse to acknowledge it because it is not true. The law forbids coordination, not communication. Given that the law allows communication, a gatekeeper is entirely appropriate and prudent.

@ElvisL1ves

Someone less prickish than you might not be be so ridiculous as to assert that one might be needed in case someone in one group was to ask for a hotel recommendation from the other. That’s all you have left for a “proper role”. If there’s no permissible coordination, there’s nothing other than those social pleasantries to legally communicate. Got it now? Gonna address the damn point instead of avoiding it and blaming everyone else for being so stupid?

Is the hotel recommendation a “social pleasantry” or is it the coordination of activity? You never answered me. That’s a fuzzy area.

And even for clear-cut cases, clients will often want a lawyer to sign off on communications. Probably 90% of the inquiries I get on chinese walls and similar arrangements have, to my mind, staggeringly obvious answers. But the client wants to be safe, so he asks. People hire lawyers not just for questions they legitimately don’t know the answer to, but also to confirm that the things they think they know are correct.

@ElvisL1ves

3. Asserting special knowledge you somehow also admit you do not possess:

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.

Amazing that I’m the one providing actual analysis and professional insight.

Maybe you ought to bone up on it a little before you try to convince anyone else you really do know enough even to post on a message board, knowhutimean?

I fail utterly to see where the contradiction in either of the above quotes are. I know enough about campaign finance law to discuss it here, but not enough to justify charging my billing rate. I have provided actual analysis, and I have provided professional insight insofar as I’ve described actual professional situations where I’ve acted in a similar capacity to Ginsberg, albeit in the context of financial institutions.

So, really, what’s the problem? Please, do tell me where I’ve asserted knowledge that I’ve also claimed I do not have.

@ElvisL1ves

Where are all the other lawyers on the board, ya know? The ones who can’t resist a law thread? The ones who normally jump in to “clarify your remarks” if you really are right but are once again letting your extra-short fuse get the better of you? Not here. You’re on your own, in case you haven’t noticed yet.

Why don’t you ask them? Perhaps they think I’m holding my own just fine. Perhaps it is because most of them are litigators who don’t have quite the same experiences I do. And if I’m so wrong, perhaps you should ask why they haven’t jumped in to correct me, as they most assuredly are wont to do if justified.

[elucidator]

After all this, I am convinced entire of one shining truth: Johnny Cochran is a punk! When it come to defense adamant and unyielding, there is Dewey, and then there is everybody else.

If Dewey had conducted OJ’s defense, the jury would have strung up the prosecution team from the nearest yardarm before pressing the Vatican for certain modifications in the rules regarding sainthood!

I almost welcome my next Federal indictment, they’ll never know what hit them.

[Mtgman]

@ElvisL1ves

All that’s required [to prevent illegal coordination between 527s and campaigns] is for neither side to even be attempting to do so.

And all that’s required to get rich is to earn more money and spend less money. It is harder than it sounds. Guys like Perry and Cordier are involved in both. How do you detect and correct it if they start a minor conspiracy? Keep them entirely seperate? No one who works for a 527 can be friends with anyone who works on a campaign? That would abridge their right of free association. Political activists are a very small minority of the population and they tend to run in the same circles a lot. It is impossible(and illegal) to forcibly keep them apart, so a watchdog is the next best bet.

Now if the watchdog is a corrupt bastard and is secretly carrying messages like a St. Bernard carries hooch, then that becomes a source of illegal coordination. Mr Ginsberg quit his job to avoid the appearance of being a St. Bernard. He denies he was ever helping coordinate the campaign/527 and I haven’t seen any credible evidence that he was. Cynic that I am I wouldn’t bet the farm on his virtue, but I wouldn’t bet on him being a Jezebel either. If he was passing notes then he’s got some big brass ones. He’d be facing criminal charges as a result of the campaign finance reform laws he would have broken as well as action from the DC bar. As I noted above, disbarred lawyers are seriously screwed.

Enjoy,
Steven

[ElvisL1ves]

Yes, the basic problem is with guys like Perry and Cordier who are actively (and, you’ll agree, improperly) working both sides of the wall, with or without benefit of a cover story. But if they want to “coordinate” the two groups, do you really think they’ll say “But wait! This might be illegal! We’d better discuss this through our official gatekeeper!”? Bull. They’ll ignore the guy entirely, do their talking outside, and the “gatekeeper” can honestly maintain that he heard nothing. But then there’s no reason for the role to exist, is there? It can do nothing to prevent coordination (unless perhaps, as the by-now-credibilityless Dewey says while pounding his table instead of reading, his purpose is to screen requests for hotel recommendations). The only role he can perform that either organization would find useful is to help hide coordinating activities, or participate in them himself. He might well play his part perfectly ethically and legally, but only by maintaining the ignorance of the piano player in a brothel.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@ElvisL1ves

Yes, the basic problem is with guys like Perry and Cordier who are actively (and, you’ll agree, improperly) working both sides of the wall, with or without benefit of a cover story.

And, of course, you can prove that, right? You do have evidence to that effect, correct?

@ElvisL1ves

But if they want to “coordinate” the two groups, do you really think they’ll say “But wait! This might be illegal! We’d better discuss this through our official gatekeeper!”? Bull. They’ll ignore the guy entirely, do their talking outside, and the “gatekeeper” can honestly maintain that he heard nothing. But then there’s no reason for the role to exist, is there? It can do nothing to prevent coordination (unless perhaps, as the by-now-credibilityless Dewey says while pounding his table instead of reading, his purpose is to screen requests for hotel recommendations). The only role he can perform that either organization would find useful is to help hide coordinating activities, or participate in them himself. He might well play his part perfectly ethically and legally, but only by maintaining the ignorance of the piano player in a brothel.

Elvis, if all of that is true, why on earth would they bother paying Patton Boggs’ legal fees? They aren’t cheap you know.

Indeed, everything you just wrote could be said about the role I’ve played in a business context. Is the only role I played to “hide coordinating activities”? Worse, am I “paricipat[ing] in” such activities? Am I a piano player in a brothel?

That’s what’s so flabbergasting about your persistence here: I keep telling you I’ve done essentially exactly the same thing as Ginsberg, and yet you keep saying that gatekeeping activities have no reason to exist. Well, like hell they don’t – I do them.

[Mtgman]

@ElvisL1ves

Yes, the basic problem is with guys like Perry and Cordier who are actively (and, you’ll agree, improperly) working both sides of the wall, with or without benefit of a cover story.

I haven’t got a clue if Perry and/or Cordier did anything improper in the legal sense. My personal disgust with pretty much everyone who seeks power leads me, personal judgement, to think they’re both slimeballs, but I’m not the controlling legal authority.

@ElvisL1ves

But if they want to “coordinate” the two groups, do you really think they’ll say “But wait! This might be illegal! We’d better discuss this through our official gatekeeper!”? Bull.

Maybe, maybe not. I’d expect the conversation something more like this. “Well, we’d really like to coordinate our 527 ads and the campaign’s efforts, but we might end up in Federal ‘pound me in the ass’ prison. Let’s run the idea by that lawyer guy and see if he thinks we’d be sacrificing our sphincteral integrity if we did X.” Or, assuming good faith on the part of Ginsberg, more like this. “Well, we’d really like to coordinate our 527 ads and the campaign’s efforts, but we might end up in Federal ‘pound me in the ass’ prison. Plus there’s that lawyer guy who reads all the memos and vets the speeches/scripts and he’s sure to notice the similarities if we do X. Then our sphincteral integrity is as good as gone.”

@ElvisL1ves

They’ll ignore the guy entirely, do their talking outside, and the “gatekeeper” can honestly maintain that he heard nothing.

Sure, and they take the risk of ending up in FPMITAP by doing so. Plus you’re making assumptions here. You’re assuming bad faith on Ginsberg’s part. Arguing against that bad faith are all the things Ginsberg stands to lose if he fails to report suspicious activity or illegal coordination. He stands to lose lots of money by being fired from both organizations, plus he has to face an almost certain inquiry from the bar. If he was actively participating then he risks his own sphincteral integrity as well as financial penalties heaped on top of disbarment. Means, gotcha. Opportutity, youbetcha. Motive? Not unless there is more to this story than I’ve seen so far.

@ElvisL1ves

The only role he can perform that either organization would find useful is to help hide coordinating activities, or participate in them himself. He might well play his part perfectly ethically and legally, but only by maintaining the ignorance of the piano player in a brothel.

Again, you are positing a conspiracy to illegally coordinate the efforts of the Bush campaign and the Swifties. It is up to you to provide evidence of this conspiracy. There are names in common between the two organizations and if you can prove your case they will go to Federal prison. But the names themselves are not compelling evidence.

@elucidator

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.

G. Gordon Liddy may have some comments in regards to this particular bit of droll commentary.

Enjoy,
Steven

[lissener]

Wow, Dewey. I marvel at your chameleon-like ability–no, your crocodilian ability–well, reptilian, anyhow–to hold fast to your prey as the ground shifts beneath you–as the ground, indeed, is knocked, falsehood by falsehood, out from under you. You started without a shred of validity, and remain just as tenacious–more tenacious–as that is brought home time and time again. You’ve risen to the top of the SDMB pantheon of People Not to Pay Any Attention To.

[ElvisL1ves]

@mtgman

You’re assuming bad faith on Ginsberg’s part. Arguing against that bad faith are all the things Ginsberg stands to lose if he fails to report suspicious activity or illegal coordination.

Etc. Not quite. You failed to note that I gave him the out of simply not being aware of such activities, because he would have been circumvented by those persons engaged in them. There isn’t necessarily bad faith involved; all that is required from him is naivete, or at least failure to ask questions.

@mtgman

Again, you are positing a conspiracy to illegally coordinate the efforts of the Bush campaign and the Swifties. It is up to you to provide evidence of this conspiracy.

Hold your horses there, pardner. You overlooked the hypothetical nature of the, um, positing. IF there’s no prostitution going on upstairs, then the brothel doesn’t need a piano player. IF there is, then maybe it does. Since you’re sharing Dewey’s delusion that we’re in a court other than the one of public opinion and demanding evidence, there’s another thing you’re dismissing a bit, shall we say, prematurely: Cordier was in both organizations. Perry was, too. Maybe they didn’t know they shouldn’t, and maybe Ginsberg didn’t know they even were, but then Ginsberg was in both organizations too. We don’t know about other “informal” relations that might have occurred off the payroll. No, that’s not enough to convict in a court of law, but it’s certainly enough to *indict * in the court of public opinion, no?

@Dewey

Indeed, everything you just wrote could be said about the role I’ve played in a business context. Is the only role I played to “hide coordinating activities”? Worse, am I “paricipat[ing] in” such activities? Am I a piano player in a brothel?

Never mind the prospect of your ever not being a prick; are you ever going to fucking read? That’s been gone over already, without you noticing. The role you’ve played in a business context was essentially to facilitate coordination, not *prevent * it. Get the difference? What part of “no coordination” do you not understand?

And do you have any good NYC hotel recommendations I can run by my gatekeeper? That’s a serious question, right?

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@ElvisL1ves

Never mind the prospect of your ever not being a prick; are you ever going to fucking read? That’s been gone over already, without you noticing. The role you’ve played in a business context was essentially to facilitate coordination, not *prevent * it. Get the difference? What part of “no coordination” do you not understand?

Apparently, you are the one who can’t read. When I act as a gatekeeper, I am most definitely acting in a role to prevent coordination. Coordination would be in many contexts a violation of insider trading laws. Coordination is what is explicitly forbidden by “chinese wall” language in a contract. The entire purpose I’m serving when I act as a gatekeeper is to prevent coordination. That’s the point. That’s why they’re paying my fee. Capiche?

Really, I’ve been over this several times now. What the fuck does it take to get it through your thick skull? My job in those scenarios is to PREVENT COORDINATION.

So again I ask: Are you suggesting that I secretly “hid[ing] coordinating activities”? Worse, am I “paricipat[ing] in” such coordination? Am I a piano player in a brothel?

@ElvisL1ves

And do you have any good NYC hotel recommendations I can run by my gatekeeper? That’s a serious question, right?

Actually, you’ve never answered the question as to whether such recommendations would amount to “coordination.” I know it seems obvious to you that the answer is “no,” but the critical question is why that’s the answer. I’m not sure the answer is that clear. That sort of thing could certainly be construed as coordination – you are, after all, sharing information that is of value to both parties, and that will enable them to more easily do their work. So why isn’t it coordination?

And this, BTW, is one of the reasons why people hire lawyers: because sometimes things that seem obvious aren’t, and you don’t want to get bitten in the ass by going on gut instinct.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@lissener

Wow, Dewey. I marvel at your chameleon-like ability–no, your crocodilian ability–well, reptilian, anyhow–to hold fast to your prey as the ground shifts beneath you–as the ground, indeed, is knocked, falsehood by falsehood, out from under you.

Please do tell what “falsehoods” have been knocked out from under me. Name-calling ain’t argumentation, bub.

@lissener

You started without a shred of validity, and remain just as tenacious–more tenacious–as that is brought home time and time again. You’ve risen to the top of the SDMB pantheon of People Not to Pay Any Attention To.

This from a guy with a mod-imposed limit on Bush threads. :rolleyes:

Don’t you still hold the record for shortest time between OP and debunking?

[lissener]

@Dewey Cheatem Undhow

Please do tell what “falsehoods” have been knocked out from under me. Name-calling ain’t argumentation, bub.
This from a guy with a mod-imposed limit on Bush threads. :rolleyes:

Don’t you still hold the record for shortest time between OP and debunking?

No idea what you’re talking about. But that’s OK; it’s still cute to see you disavow namecalling as a valid debate tool and then employ it in the next. Even cuter that your namecalling is a falsehood.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@lissener

No idea what you’re talking about.

I owe you an apology. I was thinking of Reeder, and this infamous six minute debunking.

Forgive me. Your posting styles in this thread have been very similar.

@lissener

But that’s OK; it’s still cute to see you disavow namecalling as a valid debate tool and then employ it in the next. Even cuter that your namecalling is a falsehood.

Mistaken identity notwithstanding, I don’t see how anything I posted in my reply to you could be construed as namecalling.

And I’m still waiting to hear what “falsehoods” have been knocked out from under me.

[lissener]

This from a guy with a mod-imposed limit on Bush threads.

–is namecalling; using an insult to ineffectively “debunk” an opponent’s contention. When the point of your riposte is to disable by insult rather than fact, it’s namecalling.

And reread the thread from your first contribution: whenever you post, it’s falsehoods and misdirection; whenever anyone responds to you, it’s knocking those falsehoods and misdirections out from under you.

[kaylasdad99]

Dewey, please accept my admiration, such as it is, at your ability to keep your cool throughout this exchange. I join Mtgman in accepting your explanation that the gatekeeper function is one that legitimately exists, and can legitimately be undertaken.

One thing still escapes my understanding, however. Given the circumstances surrounding Mr. Ginsberg’s departure from the role, who could possibly step in and fill the role of gatekeeper between the Swifties and the Bush campaign? Also, let us postulate that the Swifties had retained a firm other than Patton Boggs (Say Griswold and Gage, for all you Scott Turow fans). From which firm would the gatekeeper be assigned?

[ElvisL1ves]

Reeder reeds, Lissener lissens. Since you do neither, no wonder you’re confused.

@Dewey Cheatem Undhow

The entire purpose I’m serving when I act as a gatekeeper is to prevent coordination. That’s the point. That’s why they’re paying my fee. Capiche?

You’re conflating process with result - is that obfuscation on your part, or simple confusion? Let’s continue:

Really, I’ve been over this several times now. What the fuck does it take to get it through your thick skull? My job in those scenarios is to PREVENT COORDINATION.

Fuck off. Your job was ultimately to facilitate the *process * of communications necessary to lead to a business deal, the very definition of coordination of result. Campaign laws forbid both the process and the result altogether. Case A: Communications necessary, need gatekeeper to keep them clean. Not in question. Case B: Communications *unnecessary * and materially-relevant ones forbidden, gatekeeper *not *required, *anyone * found on both sides of wall automatically suspicious. Been over that with you before. Got it now?

Am I a piano player in a brothel?

Best ask yourself that, if you’re wondering. It’s a common thing to wonder, even among us ordinary people.

Actually, you’ve never answered the question as to whether such recommendations would amount to “coordination.”

Judas Priest, you’re serious! Okay, I’ll indulge you, for your own possible edification: Such communication is obviously (well, to a legal-standard “reasonable person”, which might be the source of your comprehension trouble) *not * a political activity, unlike speech topics, campaign scheduling, ads and their placement, talking points, interview topics, to name a few of the most obvious.

And this, BTW, is one of the reasons why people hire lawyers: because sometimes things that seem obvious aren’t, and you don’t want to get bitten in the ass by going on gut instinct.

And the type of legal advice given by the likes of you is that it’s okay to work both sides of the gateless wall as long as your firm is prestigious enough, or if “the other guys do it too”? Good heavens. One of the reasons people hire lawyers is to protect themselves from that sort of nonsense.

[Squink]

Of what possible utility is a gatekeeper who quits the moment anyone asks whether someone might have used the gate?
If electricians worked this way, the 30 Amp circuits in our houses would all be equipped with 100 milliamp fuses.

[Clark_K]

@kaylasdad99

Dewey, please accept my admiration, such as it is, at your ability to keep your cool throughout this exchange. I join Mtgman in accepting your explanation that the gatekeeper function is one that legitimately exists, and can legitimately be undertaken.

I agree. I’m impressed, though others apparently aren’t, by your patience and clarity. I’m especially glad that you pointed out Ginsberg was outside counsel and not a Bush campaign employee.

BUT Ginsberg was more than a hired gun. He said in his “Nightline” interview that helping re-elect Bush was the greatest honor of his life. He is a True Believer. While he may be on solid legal ground to work with Bush and Swift Vets at the same time, I remain convinced that it was wrong politically and ethically.

It was wrong (or at least stupid) politically because it opens the Bush campaign to the kinds of accusations being made in this thread. It was wrong ethically because he was helping promote a position contrary to Bush’s – unless, and this is what it all comes down to, the position isn’t really contrary to Bush’s.

His work for the Swifties is strong evidence (though not proof) that the Bush campaign supported the group’s activities, even if they did not break the law in doing so.

By the way, Talking Points Memo points out that Bush said Kerry was mad at “us” for the Vietnam allegations. Bush sure made it sound like he considers his campaign and the Swifties to be one and the same.

[elucidator]

Not necessarily, it could be a statement about being unjustly “mad at us”. If he thinks of the Swifties as being seperate from his own personal group - "us’ - and figures that group is being attacked because of the Swifties - “them” - then he probably would use the phrasing “…Kerry is mad at us…”. Just like he might say “Kerry is mad at us, but they did it!”

I really doubt Bush knew anything about it, his management style is to set goals, approve plans, let the professional skullduggers do thier thing… Odds on Karl Rove…maybe 50/50. Could also just be Tighty Righty zealots who operated independently pretty much assuming that the WH would love it, and knew better than to ask.