Bush lawyer resigns

[jjskribs]

Just caught a little bit of this on the local news... Apparently Ben Ginsburg has resigned because he had offered "advice" to the Swift Boat Veterans.

But I'm SURE the Bush administration has absolutely no connection to the Swifties........

 

[Saffron]

Whoa, interesting. I hadn't heard the story. Thanks!

 

[DawnCt1]

Much ado about nothing. Why aren't you as concerned about Kerry's relationship to Moveon.org, etc.

 

[DawnCt1]

Much ado about nothing. Why aren't you as concerned about Kerry's relationship to Moveon.org, etc.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Much ado about nothing. Why aren't you as concerned about Kerry's relationship to Moveon.org, etc.

The evidence supporting this charge is... ???

As far as much ado about nothing, Mr. Ginsburg was a paid staffer of the Bush campaign and while being paid by the campaign was providing legal advice, albeit it free, to a 527 organization. At the bare minimum the impropriety and stupidity of this activity is astounding. At worst, it could be deemed by the Federal Election Commission as a semblance of coordination of effort between the campaign and a 527. And that is very, very bad.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
The evidence supporting this charge is... ???

As far as much ado about nothing, Mr. Ginsburg was a paid staffer of the Bush campaign and while being paid by the campaign was providing legal advice, albeit it free, to a 527 organization. At the bare minimum the impropriety and stupidity of this activity is astounding. At worst, it could be deemed by the Federal Election Commission as a semblance of coordination of effort between the campaign and a 527. And that is very, very bad.

Then I guess you would say the same thing about the Kerry campaign that has its own campaign lawyers advising them and the 527 ad groups that have been working so hard against the president. One has to prove coordination, not a connection. If that were the case, Kerry would have had to get rid of John Podesta before he even started.

 

[DawnCt1]

Link: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040825/D84MC1501.html

 

[DawnCt1]

Link: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040825/D84MC1501.html

Use www.drudgereport.com to get to the link.
Do explain to me however why the moveon.org lawyer refuses to quit the Kerry campaign. I would love to know.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Then I guess you would say the same thing about the Kerry campaign that has its own campaign lawyers advising them and the 527 ad groups that have been working so hard against the president. One has to prove coordination, not a connection. If that were the case, Kerry would have had to get rid of John Podesta before he even started.

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 he added that it doesn't mean the FEC won't look at it.

"I think there's a valid question about when you're talking about strictly legal advice and when you're talking about policy issues and strategic issues," Noble said. "It's fair to ask what the advice is about."

If you believe you have credible evidence that the Kerry campaign is coordinating its efforts with any 527, then you have the responsibility of reporting that to the FEC. If there's a legitimate issue or concern, then the FEC should investigate it, just as they should do with this incident.

But it serves no point to throw about unsubstantiated accusations such as "they're doing it, too." Again, if you have some evidence to support your charge, I would love to read it.

In the case of the Bush campaign, they have the responsibility now of addressing this question: was Ginsburg providing strictly legal advice or did it stray beyond that? From what I read of Ginsburg's statement, that issue is not very clear.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
If you believe you have credible evidence that the Kerry campaign is coordinating its efforts with any 527, then you have the responsibility of reporting that to the FEC. If there's a legitimate issue or concern, then the FEC should investigate it, just as they should do with this incident.

But it serves no point to throw about unsubstantiated accusations such as "they're doing it, too." Again, if you have some evidence to support your charge, I would love to read it.

I didn't charge "coordination", I clearly said a connection. The same connection that Ginsburg is reported to have. Ginsburg has resigned. Kerry's lawyer has not.

 

[faithinkarma]

There is one significant difference. Move on has been around since the Clinton years. The SBVs were formed specifically to smear one man, and they have been proven to be liars.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
I didn't charge "coordination", I clearly said a connection. The same connection that Ginsburg is reported to have. Ginsburg has resigned. Kerry's lawyer has not.

The issue of whether Ginburg's activities were coordination or simply connection is something yet to be determined.

The fact that Ginsburg felt it was necessary to resign begs the question of how far did he go. Was he tip-toeing on the ragged edge of coordination or not?

The fact that Kerry's lawyer does not feel compelled to resign speaks volumes. It may very well be that with him there is no question of connection vs. coordination.

Again, such issues would have to be addressed & decided by the FEC. We mere mortals can argue about such things, but that hardly constitutes a final determination.

 

[peachgirl]

There is one significant difference.

Actually, there are at least two...the one that you mentioned and the fact that moveon and the swift liars are not the same type organizations.

So, yet another link between bush and the swift liars. Bush needs to be a little more careful when he slings that mud, it's getting all over him.


<center><IMG width="300"SRC="http://"campaignsource.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/kebetteramerbtn.gif"></center>

 

[Peter Pirate]

Also, the bush people have continually lied about this fact, saying that there was 'NO connection'. Do these lies mean nothing to bush supporters? Can the bush administration be honest about anything? Abu Gharib? WMD? Saddam? The Saudis? And on and on and on...

 

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

I think the most sigificant development in this whole mess is that we are getting a clear picture of how Kerry intends to execute his responsibilities as commander in chief.

Will Kerry stay the course in Iraq and in the greater war on terror? We learn from his now infamous 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he had no desire to see America stay the course in the Cold War: "we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now"
http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html
Please read the testimony, don't rely on the snippets being replayed on the news. Clearly, Kerry thought that America's so-called war crimes were a much greater threat than communism. If he didn't think America's war against communism was worth fighting, can he handle the "grave and gathering" threat that our country faces now? Can he be trusted to even recognize the threat?

Also interesting is Kerry's itching and moaning about the ads. I am more impressed by Bush's response to the 527 ads he had to endure, not to mention the anti-Bush movies and concerts. He didn't beg Kerry to muzzle the Michael Moores and the MoveOns of the world. Bush didn't seem to complain much at all. Kerry, on the other hand, has been hysterical over the last few days. If Kerry can't handle the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, how can he be trusted to handle Islamofascism.

 

[faithinkarma]

ah but you are forgetting that being a flip flopper has its advantages. It means you are not the same person at 60 that you were at 25. Some people actually evolve over the decades and most see that as a good thing. Of course those who think never ever re-evaluating or changing your mind about issue as a good thing, will disagree.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
There is one significant difference. Move on has been around since the Clinton years. The SBVs were formed specifically to smear one man, and they have been proven to be liars.

So longevity gives them an edge on the truth? I didn't know that lies and smears that are grandfathered in from the clinton years makes Kerry's connection with them at this time okay, but a group of American hero veterans who want to get the truth out about the core of kerry's believes are liars who deserved to be silenced. The Kerry campaign will try not to let you down. The PI's and goons are out there attempting to dig up dirt on the Swift vets. One thing that Kerry can't rewrite however is his accusations that his fellow veterans committed war crimes. He can dismiss it now as hyperbole but they were real words with real impact during the Viet Nam war.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by Funkyzeit mit Bruno
Kerry, on the other hand, has been hysterical over the last few days. If Kerry can't handle the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, how can he be trusted to handle Islamofascism.

Excellent points of course. Bob Dole is right. He is focused on his war record which is confused, instead of his senate record which is thin. Dole also made the point that Americans love heros; quiet heros. One always has to look closely at someone too willing to toot his own horn.

 

[peachgirl]

I am more impressed by Bush's response to the 527 ads he had to endure, not to mention the anti-Bush movies and concerts.

Actually, the truth is, he responds to "attacks" stronger than Kerry does. After all, he did succeed in having a book banned by threatening to send his lawyers after the publisher.

And he has filed complaints with the FEC as well, including one last March.



Hysterical? No. Hsyterical is when you tell terrorists all over the world that they should give Americans their best shot. Kerry is showing that he won't tolerate this kind of smear campaign. The Republicans simply don't know how to handle someone fighting back. Gee, it's always worked in the past, why shouldn't it now? They just can't figure it out.

<center><IMG width="150" SRC="http://logo.cafepress.com/5/2952.281325.jpg "></center>

 

[Chicago526]

Originally posted by jjskribs
Just caught a little bit of this on the local news... Apparently Ben Ginsburg has resigned because he had offered "advice" to the Swift Boat Veterans.

But I'm SURE the Bush administration has absolutely no connection to the Swifties........

Well, OF COURSE Bush had no connection, how DARE you insinuate that the President had knowledge of a negitive ad campaign, that if he WERE connected to (which he isn't, he'd never do such a thing **CoughMcCain-North CarolinaCough**), would be illigal?