Incompetence or more "bad intel"

[kallend 2,174]

"The president has made it repeatedly clear that he wants to see an end to all" advertising from outside groups, said Brian Jones, a Bush campaign spokesman.

The Bush campaign has claimed repeatedly that there has been NO CONTACT between the campaign and "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (sic).

SBVFT spokesman stated they have no contact with the Bush campaign.

Now TWO Bush campaign staffers, including top campaign attorney Ginsburg, have admitted
working with SBVFT.

I suppose it's just "bad intel" again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Now TWO Bush campaign staffers, including top campaign attorney Ginsburg, have admitted working with SBVFT.

As long as those staffers weren't serving as intermediaries for Bush, then the statement was truthful.

Let's say that person A works for person B.
And person A also works for person C.

That does not automatically mean that person C is controlling person B.

A professor should be able to perform a better logical analysis than you just demonstrated here.

[billvon 3,131]

>Let's say that person A works for person B.
>And person A also works for person C.
>That does not automatically mean that person C is controlling person B.

Controlling? No, you are correct. Employing someone does not mean you control them.

But if I claim that I have no contact whatsoever with Microsoft, and in fact I _employ_ a Microsoft laywer - that would be a lie.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

But if I claim that I have no contact whatsoever with Microsoft, and in fact I _employ_ a Microsoft laywer - that would be a lie.

Why? The lawyer I hired has worked for a lot of other people. I know nothing of their business, and have no contact with them.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,131]

>Why? The lawyer I hired has worked for a lot of other people.

Ah, but if the lawyer you employ IS working for someone else - you have contact with that other company, by definition. If someone hired me to do part time work, he has contact with a Qualcomm employee - and hence with Qualcomm. If Hughes hired me to give them advice on what Qualcomm was doing with their satellite phone business, people would (quite rightly) be concerned about potential conflicts of interest.

[Kennedy 0]

You put your finger on it right there. The difference is whether or not the lawyer communicated things to each party, or if he was only offereing seperate adivce on similar issues.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,131]

>The difference is whether or not the lawyer communicated things to each
>party, or if he was only offereing seperate adivce on similar issues.

Except that wasn't the question. If someone asked Hughes "do you have any contact with Qualcomm?" and they said "none at all" they would be lying. Now, if the question was "have you used your Qualcomm contact to coordinate your satphone strategy?" they might well say "no" - but that would be a different question.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

Now TWO Bush campaign staffers, including top campaign attorney Ginsburg, have admitted working with SBVFT.

As long as those staffers weren't serving as intermediaries for Bush, then the statement was truthful.

Let's say that person A works for person B.
And person A also works for person C.

That does not automatically mean that person C is controlling person B.

A professor should be able to perform a better logical analysis than you just demonstrated here.

Generally when organizations have "contact" they do it by way of people. You know, person A meets with person B. You can't claim it didn't happen here 'cos they admitted it.

Are you are going to claim "bad intel" next.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

You put your finger on it right there. The difference is whether or not the lawyer communicated things to each party, or if he was only offereing seperate adivce on similar issues.

Wasn't only the lawyer. The other Bush campaign guy actually appeared in one SBVFT ad.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

And I thought we agreed in the Alston thread that this was just more campaign BS, and not a serious infraction.

(at least, no more serious than is already happening and causing no stir)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

And I thought we agreed in the Alston thread that this was just more campaign BS, and not a serious infraction.

(at least, no more serious than is already happening and causing no stir)

I doubt it's illegal. Just at variance with what they first said.

Yeah, it's all BS and we have 2+ more months of it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Wasn't only the lawyer. The other Bush campaign guy actually appeared in one SBVFT ad.

And a GOP campaign office paid for, produced, and distributed flyers promoting an appearance by the SBVFT.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Quote

And I thought we agreed in the Alston thread that this was just more campaign BS, and not a serious infraction.

(at least, no more serious than is already happening and causing no stir)

I doubt it's illegal. Just at variance with what they first said.

Yeah, it's all BS and we have 2+ more months of it.

For a group of guys that is pretty firmly on the -I HATE LAWYERS- bandwagon, they seem to make pretty effective use of very fine distinctions between legal/illegal.

illegible usually

[Ron 10]

Quote

The Bush campaign has claimed repeatedly that there has been NO CONTACT between the campaign and "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (sic).

SBVFT spokesman stated they have no contact with the Bush campaign.

Now TWO Bush campaign staffers, including top campaign attorney Ginsburg, have admitted
working with SBVFT.

Well how about these apples:

Quote

The Kerry campaign subsequently slammed Bush for coordination efforts. In response, the Bush campaign named several Kerry campaign advisers who also represent 527s, including former Clinton adviser Harold Ickes, a member of the Democratic National Committee's Executive Committee and the Media Fund; and Joe Sandler, legal counsel to both the Kerry campaign and MoveOn.org.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,174]

Quote

Quote

The Bush campaign has claimed repeatedly that there has been NO CONTACT between the campaign and "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" (sic).

SBVFT spokesman stated they have no contact with the Bush campaign.

Now TWO Bush campaign staffers, including top campaign attorney Ginsburg, have admitted
working with SBVFT.

Well how about these apples:

Quote

The Kerry campaign subsequently slammed Bush for coordination efforts. In response, the Bush campaign named several Kerry campaign advisers who also represent 527s, including former Clinton adviser Harold Ickes, a member of the Democratic National Committee's Executive Committee and the Media Fund; and Joe Sandler, legal counsel to both the Kerry campaign and MoveOn.org.

Did the Kerry campaign previously claim "NO CONTACT" like the Bush campaign did?

The legality is still being decided by the FEC. The Bush LIE is there for all to see.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.