Is Kerry breaking the law ?

[johnb]

http://kerryhaters.blogspot.com/2004_08_22_kerryhaters_archive.html

SWIFT KICK AT KERRY
By Deborah Orin
Robert "Friar Tuck" Brant ? one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who signed a letter charging Kerry with sliming fellow Vietnam vets by accusing them of war crimes ? said Kerry asked to meet with him, but he refused. Brant, a retired Navy commander, said Kerry called on Sunday, asking if he knew about the Swift Vets for Truth, and he bluntly replied, "I am one, John."
?
Sean McCabe, a spokesman for the 264-member organization [Swift Boat Vets for Truth], said it plans to send a cease-and-desist letter warning Kerry "to stop calling our members," because it's an independent "527" group and it's illegal for campaigns to contact them.



=======================================
If John Kerry is so bright and so concerned about 527 expenditures how come he doesn't realize it would be illegal for Bush, et al, to have anything to do with the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth ? Bush can no more call them up and order them to stop doing what they're doing than he can supress the First Amendment. Just because there is illegal coordination between Kerry's people and Moveon.org doesn't mean there is illegal coordination between Bush's people and SBVftT.

[Laurie]

johnb - "Just because there is illegal coordination between Kerry's people and Moveon.org doesn't mean there is illegal coordination between Bush's people and SBVftT."

No, not at all.

Bush campaign lawyer advises swift boat group
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/24/veterans.group.ap/index.html

Bush adviser quits after appearing in swift boat ad
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html

[johnb]

The CNN article you cite disproves your insinuation Laurie.

On Saturday, retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier resigned as a member of the Bush campaign's veterans' steering committee after it was learned that he appeared in the Swift Boat veterans' commercial.

His appearing in the ad is not coordination, the Bush campaign learned of his involvement when he appeared in the ad and his affiliation with the Bush campaign was ended. Coordination assumes there is two way knowledge and communication regarding campaign activities. That is what is going on between Kerry's people and Moveon.org.

As an attorney Ginsburg can give legal advice to both groups and not violate the law. What would be illegal is for Bush or Kerry or their paid staff to tell/suggest/etc that a 527 run a certain ad. What Kerry wants Bush to do assumes Bush has some role in SBVftT and if Bush were to do what Kerry demands Bush might very well then be violating the law by telling that one group to pull it's ads off the air. In effect, Kerry is attempting to solicit Bush into violating the law.

/////....////

Ginsberg contends that by offering legal advice to both the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat group, he has done nothing different than other election lawyers in Washington, including attorneys for Kerry and the Democratic National Committee who have also advised soft-money groups.

Representing campaigns, parties and outside groups simultaneously is legal and allowed under the law and by the FEC, he said.

"The truth is there is only a handful of lawyers who live and breathe this law. And so because the coordination rules do not include legal services among the prohibited coordinated activities, we provide legal service," Ginsberg said.

Larry Noble, head of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics campaign watchdog group and former FEC general counsel, said it's true that serving as a lawyer for both a campaign and a soft-money group isn't considered automatic evidence of coordination under commission rules, but added that it doesn't mean the FEC won't look at it.

Nice try.

[Wuptdo]

I think that both sides are coordinating their respective 527's (covertly). However, no matter who wins in November, will their be any corrective action and/or fines leived against these organization? Probably not. I think this is turning out to be a very "dirty" race. Makes for good press.

Another good site to check out:

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

And this is a powerful read as well:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3728.html

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

I dunno wup....the evidence so far seems to point to one side definetly coordinating with 527's while Bush & crew get hit with innuendo of the "everybody knows" caliber.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7012

A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP
On Friday, Kerry campaign spokesman Debra Deshong was telling any reporter who would listen that there was a big difference between the negative advertisements being run by George Soros-funded MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: "MoveOn.org is an independent organization that existed well before the Kerry campaign," she said, whereas the veterans group "is not an independent group."

Deshong denied that the campaign had any knowledge about MoveOn.org's financing or motives or plans in its almost $20 million attacks against President Bush. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has spent about $800,000 on its advertising.

In fact, according to a Kerry campaign volunteer, staff members and volunteers of the Kerry campaign in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles have been in almost constant contact with MoveOn.org staffers, including advanced viewing and reviews of MoveOn.org television commercials, online ads, and web content. As well, MoveOn.org staffers provided the Kerry campaign with opposition research within the past two months, as well as advance looks at speeches made by MoveOn.org speakers, including former Vice President Al Gore.

"We're always running into those guys," says a Kerry campaign volunteer in Washington, about MoveOn.org staffers. "We socialize with them, we see them at meetings, we can't avoid it. And of course we talk about the campaign. In some cities, we get our volunteers from MoveOn. No one has ever raised an issue about it."

In some cases, it isn't just volunteers that the Kerry campaign is getting from MoveOn.org. They are hiring them too. In April, the Kerry campaign hired MoveOn's special projects and research director Jack Exley to oversee Kerry's campaign's website. At the time, the Kerry campaign made a point of saying that Exley was joining the campaign with not a single scrap of paper or computer disk from his time with MoveOn.

But Exley didn't need to bring much. According to another Kerry adviser, there were already so many back-channel relationships between the two organizations, Exley's presence to foster more was unnecessary. "As soon as it was clear Kerry had the nomination, we began coordinating. It's all done through the DNC and the AFL-CIO, which is financing many of the other groups out there running anti-Republican advertising. We will sit on conference calls, but we won't take part. We just take notes, then confer with our folks inside the DNC. That's the way it's done."

The major media is so pro-Kerry that they'll bend over backwards to ignore issues like this while screaming about Bush's National Guard record and any other unsupported accusation Kerry throws out. Kerry accusing Bush of doing what Kerry's staff admits doing is not proof Bush did anything wrong. Hell, I'm not even a Republican and I can identify the hypocrisy being pushed as news.

[johnb]

Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Letter to John Kerry


August 25, 2004

Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That?s why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that?s why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities ? and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We?re proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can?t have it both ways. You can?t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 ?we do not need to divide America over who served and how.? Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too ? and proud to support President Bush. He?s been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He?s made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 ? in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he?s praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran?s right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Rep. Duke Cunningham
Rep. Duncan Hunter
Rep. Sam Johnson
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient
Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.)

[johnb]

Maybe Bush IS behind Vietnam veterans attacking a Presidential candidate.....there actually is proof one Veteran attack dog is a paid political appointee put in his $136,000 position by Bush. Maybe the NY Times, et al, will go crazy and accuse Bush of using a government job as a payoff to this particular veteran...I mean...there is proof behind this accusation...

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200408251621.asp

August 25, 2004, 4:21 p.m.
A $136,000 Link
Max Cleland, Bush political appointee.

Max Cleland, who made a staged appearance at the Bush ranch Wednesday, was appointed by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank in 2003. The same Max Cleland who is spending nearly all of his time attacking President Bush is, amazingly enough, a Bush political appointee.


According to a bank spokesman, Cleland makes $136,000 a year off this very cushy job. A couple of questions come to mind here: If Cleland had any decency, wouldn't he resign? Why would he accept a political appointment from a man he so loathes and thinks represents the very worst in American politics? Max Cleland's extremely partisan activities are being subsidized by the American taxpayer.

But, wait, it gets more sinister. There is now a definitive link between President Bush and the attacks against him. This link is as direct as most of the links that have been highlighted between Bush and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: Bush gave a $136,000 job to one of his attackers and a key member of Kerry's "band of brothers." By the logic of most of the press corps, this means George W. Bush must be responsible for the activities of Kerry campaign's band of brothers (see this chart). Who knows what deep game is being played here, but somebody should call the New York Times.

The bank's bipartisan board has five members, no more than three of whom can be from one political party. The board is responsible for the policymaking and decision-making of the bank. There are no time or attendance requirements that go with the job, and no attendance records are kept. A spokesman tells NRO that the board meets, on average, once a week, and that Cleland, nominated and confirmed in late 2003, has been voting at meetings. But he notes that board members can participate by phone. (I did say very cushy, didn't I?)

Board members are subject to the provisions of the Hatch Act that restricts the activities of federal employees. But since they are presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed, the restrictions on them are much lighter, and Cleland's political activities are presumably legal. That doesn't make it any more seemly. The bank spokesman says that there are no time requirements on board members. "Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate are considered to be always on the job," he says. "They don't have 9-5 assignments. They don't have to work eight-hour days. While they are a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate, they are always a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate." Even when they are attacking the president?

The Export-Import Bank, which helps U.S. corporations in its overseas business, is often cited as an example of the kind of "corporate welfare" that John Kerry has occasionally railed against. That apparently doesn't matter to Max Cleland. He's happy to get on the gravy train, and trash the president who put him there.

[johnb]

Holly,

Did you know the legal counsel for the Kerry campaign is also legal counsel for certain 527's? Comments from Karl Rove to Brit Hume today:

KARL ROVE: Well, first, no one in the Bush campaign has coordinated with the swift boat veterans. Ben Ginsberg, as you said, was our outside counsel and also outside counsel to the 527 group. That's normal. The legal counsel for the Kerry campaign is counsel to 527 groups there. The DNC legal counsel is the legal counsel for MoveOn.org, as well. They're fulfilling a legal function, not a political -- they're not political consultants. But Ben Ginsberg, who's a great friend of this president and has been with him since he began to run for president in 1999, did -- was -- resigned from the Bush campaign in order to remove any possibility of being a distraction to his friend. He wants to see the president reelected. He knows that there's a hypocritical double standard on the part of some in the media, where a lawyer for the Bush campaign who is also the lawyer for a 527 is somehow suspect, where a lawyer for the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee, who's also a lawyer for a 527 group is not. And he accepted that reality and decided he wanted to help his friend. And the best way he could help his friend was to resign.[/b]

[hollyL]

Holly,

Did you know the legal counsel for the Kerry campaign is also legal counsel for certain 527's? Comments from Karl Rove to Brit Hume today:


Didn't know that until today but I don't really understand why Ginsberg resigned. It isn't illegal for them to represent both anyway. At least that is what I thought...

[johnb]

It isn't, but it makes a great smear attack. Frankly, I don't think it is unethical for the Donkeys to have the same attorneys providing legal counsel for Moveon.org and the DNC . Legal counsel is not political counsel. However, just like Kerry's Vietnam service, they made it an issue now they need to explain why it's ethical and legal for them to do the exact same thing they now demand and Independent Counsel to investigate Bush for doing.

If it's a illegal coordination for the GOP to have one attorney for both the SBVftT and the Bush campaign then it's illegal coordination for the Donkeys to have one attorney for moveon.org and the DNC.

[johnb]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040826/D84MK0K80.html

Benjamin Ginsberg, who also represented Bush in the 2000 Florida recount that made the Republican president, told Bush in a letter that he felt his legal work for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had become a distraction for the re-election campaign.

"I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing," Ginsberg wrote.[/b]

[Wuptdo]

Ginsberg wrote:


I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing," Ginsberg wrote.

Mr. Ginsberg, in my opinion, did the right thing. Why be cannon flodder for the other side. However, by doing the "right" thing and trying to take the "high road" have cost the Republicans elections in the past. They must learn to get their hands dirty and wallow in the "pig pen" just like the Democrats have done since reconstruction.

According to the "talking heads" on MSNBC, the democrats are upset because Karl Rowe & Company are stealing "plays" from their playbook. Something else was also mentioned last night - the Kerry Campaign has nothing to loose and everything to gain. Wait till September.

Also, I have a feeling that next weeks RNC in NYC is going to make the DNC in 1968 look like a love fest.

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

The donkeys have already promised that wup.

I would not be expected to see an outburst of violence directed at individual conventioneers. The donkeys are mad as hell that they lost in 2000 and the feeling that they are gonna loose in 2004 is sinking in.

[Wuptdo]

Johnb - is this the same Mr. Ginsberg that "Johnny-boy" won't sign on for the Fourth Circuit Court?

RNC violence. Hopefully, they have the 10th Mountain Division on stand-by. I wouldn't count on too much help from the NYPD (union controlled). Maybe the RNC should hire the "Hell's Angles" for additional security. :wink:

Wuptdo B-)

Great messages heard on Convention PA System:

DNC, 2004
Please do not take the "brown" acid, it is bad acid

RNC, 2004
Please do not eat the raw oysters, we just found out they are from Boston

[hollyL]

If it's a illegal coordination for the GOP to have one attorney for both the SBVftT and the Bush campaign then it's illegal coordination for the Donkeys to have one attorney for moveon.org and the DNC.

I couldn't agree more!

[johnb]

Kerry and the DNC are arguing quite the opposite Holly.

They want to behave one way and condemn others for behaving the same way.

There is a word for that.