Thursday, September 21, 2006

Doyle's on fire again

Having spent the morning semi-comatose, I'm late to the story, but imagine my surprise when I weaved down the stairs this morning and found that my daily newspaper was sitting on the counter with smoke pouring from its pages.

The Dem spin on the Election Board's ruling that Green could not transfer legally raised federal money to his state account was that the Board "found this" as if the SEB were a Council of impartial elders, furrowing brows and contemplating the truth.

If that were the case - if the SEB was acting as an impartial tribunal - it would not be permissible to ex parte its members. If I call a judge (in the absence of the other side) and ask for a little love on a pending motion, I will soon become intimately acquainted with the Office of Lawyer Regulation.

Nor could I ask a judge to find in my favor because it will be a PR victory for my side and force my opponents to spend money. A lawyer may not take a position to harass or delay.

If its OK to contact the SEB on a pending matter, it is because it is acting in a quasi-legislative capacity. Legislators don't "find" things, they vote on them. Its an exercise of power and the one with the most votes wins. In this case, Democrat partisans had the votes to stick it to Green and they did so.

That may be legal but is it is hardly scandalous for the losing side.

Of course, apart from the legality, this looks awful. Here's Maistelman carefully circumventing the open meetings laws and telling these intrepid seekers of truth what the "powers that be" had deemed acceptable. Here he is again telling them that they can tie Green up in the courts and make him look bad.

The Journal Sentinel says Maistelman denied that he was representing Doyle at the hearing. What is that about? Did he just remember? Or did he think he could take off his lawyer hat and disavow his client when he entered the hearing room?

You can't blame Doyle for denying that he knew about this. But how plausible is that? Was he really indifferent to the matter before the SEB? And, if he was briefed on it, wouldn't one of the first items of conversation be that they had retained counsel.

5 comments:

Peter said...

The Doyle administration and campaign — which frequently is one and the same — is a collection of cheap thugs and amateur goons.

Larry in Gibbsville said...

Excellent post, this is not a good day for the Doyle campaign. And the lawyer looks slimier and slimier as the day goes on.

I don't believe for a minute that Doyle didn't know what was going on, he can't be that oblivious about what is going on in his campaign.

steveegg said...

To quote a popular hip-hop song (with some "slight" editing) -

Jim Doyle, Jim Doyle,
Jim Doyle is on fire!
We don't need no water,
Let the <expletive deleted> burn!
Burn, <expletive deleted>, BURN!

redvest said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
redvest said...

The duality of man indeed. But do we have the stones to call out our own? What about JB Van Hollen's connections to Nick Hurtgen? What about Phil Prange who runs the campaign for Van Hollen who was/is the lobby for Philip Morris and his wife is the Gov. Relations Rep for the Amercian Cancer Society? Jugnian indeed. Strange bedfellows..Prange- Marotta- Hurtgen Doyle- Van Hollen. Makes for a State ripe with Political Corruption, no? Perhaps it's just part of the duality of man not to walk a straight line. "Twist a pig's ear and watch him squeal", it's time to watch Prange, Hurtgen Doyle, Marotta squeal don't we think?