Reilly would not comment about his staff's involvement in media coverage of Killer Coke.So we know nothing, except that Tom Reilly CONDONES what happened. Tom Reilly didn't do it, but Ray Rogers was asking "fair questions." The 527s should have been banned last Presidential Election, but Bush refused to denounce the Swiftboaters. And, just like Bush, Tom Reilly thinks it was a great thing that Ray Rogers insinuated that Deval Patrick should somehow be held accountable for what happened in Columbia - that Deval Patrick is an accomplice in a murder plot?
``We should know what really happened," he said. ``That gentleman was asking fair questions."
Nevermind that Deval Patrick left the company because he wasn't allowed by his superiors to do a full and thorough investigation, never mind that the courts ruled Coca-Cola was innocent... Tom Reilly thinks Ray Rogers was asking fair questions.
Well, Tom Reilly, maybe you should stop thinking about what are fair questions and start informing your campaign to play by the rules... or at least and not violate campaign finance laws.
However, this thing's far from over. Despite the scarcity of reporting post-Vennochi bombshell, there's going to be a hearing about this case that the unions brought forward. There will be a full and complete investigation. The media needs to cover it, but you can bet your ass I'll be following as well.
If there's one thing that's more than obvious here, it's that the Tom Reilly campaign has committed serious campaign finance violations. They won't get away with it.
Update: A Frank Phillips article I could read from beginning to end without clicking over to the Letters to the Editor section to complain. Wow. (That said, there were some annoying things in it... but I'm not going to scold general progress).
Posts
6 comments:
Ryan, I hate to say this, but if there's one thing that's "More than obvious" it's that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've asked you on no less than three occasions to cite the specific law that was broken, and you have failed to produce any evidence aside from other blogs. If you want to cling to this in the hopes that it will bring Reilly down, have a blast, but it ain't stickin' outside the blog world.
GL c. 55, s. 8. See also OCPF-IB-06-01, regarding coordination between campaigns and outside entities like Killer Coke. All the citations you need are at the BMG posts to which Ryan linked.
The e-mails discussed in Vennochi's column will never lead to charges of "Coordination." Even though the intentions of the parties involved are clear, such charges would never hold up in a courtroom.
Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain! I am the Great And Powerful Oz!
lol anon. Aaron, you have to face reality. At the very least what was done goes beyond sleazy politics, when in fact it was probably illegal.
David summed up a very convincing legal opinion and as he is a lawyer (and seemingly a successful one at that, whose worked for Supreme Court justices in the past), I defer to his legal argument.
I'm not just linking to "a blog" when I linked to David's post; I'm linking to an authority on the legal subject, as far as I'm concerned. When I have my law degree, I'll be sure to give my legal analysis... but, as yet, I don't have one.
Post a Comment