tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post115909365608461630..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Don't get too happyRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1159247585331144532006-09-26T00:13:00.000-05:002006-09-26T00:13:00.000-05:00And where, oh where, did Green's argument go that ...And where, oh where, did Green's argument go that the money already was spent? That argument was enough in itself for me to realize that the man is just . . . well, a fool. You can't take that argument to the bank that holds your mortgage, and that much certainly was obvious to every voter.<BR/><BR/>Now, with the court's chastisement that he was wrong to not put the money in escrow within the 10-day deadline of the EB, it seems that -- voila! -- Green has the money and meekly will escrow it as ordered weeks ago.<BR/><BR/>I can hardly wait for the next sign of floundering in the Green campaign, the next silly argument. . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1159138160561459822006-09-24T17:49:00.000-05:002006-09-24T17:49:00.000-05:00AnonNo, I'm not dodging; I'm saying its another qu...Anon<BR/><BR/>No, I'm not dodging; I'm saying its another question. My point was that the fact that DOJ defends the SEB means nothing. That's its job.<BR/><BR/>As for the argument from federal law, I assume you are not a lawyer. There is no federal law that expresly prohibits this. What DOJ is arguing is that a federal statute that lists some uses for federal contributions sub silentio (without saying) outlaws federal to state conversions. That may be, but it's hardly self evident. If it turns out that Green is wrong and it does prohibit conversions, then Green will have taken a legal position that a court did not accept. Happens all day. It is not the moral equivalent, as Doyle suggests, of being caught in the Louvre at midnight dressed in black with a flashlight.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1159131260565354772006-09-24T15:54:00.000-05:002006-09-24T15:54:00.000-05:00"As far as the argument from newly enacted federal..."As far as the argument from newly enacted federal law, I haven't done the work to say whether that makes sense or not, althoughit does not seem to be obvious."<BR/><BR/>Again, you dodge. If there is recent federal law which makes the transfer illegal, Green has made a major tactical error by appealing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1159129673877387542006-09-24T15:27:00.000-05:002006-09-24T15:27:00.000-05:00That doesn't amount to an independent finding by t...That doesn't amount to an independent finding by the Justice Department either. Its just part of representing the state's position. That doesn't mean its not right, it just means that it makes no sense to say, as Dem blogger Seth Zlochota did, that "you can add the Wisconsin DOJ to the list of groups and people who think the use of unregistered PAC money by Congressman Green in a state election is illegal." That's like saying, in 1994, that you could "add Johnny Cochrane to the list of people who think OJ is innocent."<BR/><BR/>As far as the argument from newly enacted federal law, I haven't done the work to say whether that makes sense or not, althoughit does not seem to be obvious.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1159095344059972172006-09-24T05:55:00.000-05:002006-09-24T05:55:00.000-05:00This is a nice attempt at obfuscation:"BONUS OBSER...This is a nice attempt at obfuscation:<BR/><BR/>"BONUS OBSERVATION: Nor does it mean anything that the State Department of Justice is arguing that the State Election Board was correct in forbidding Mark Green's transfer of federal funds to his state account. It is the AG's job to represent state agencies. Had the SEB gone the other way, so would the DOJ."<BR/><BR/>Why don't you comment on the new legal theory espoused by the DOJ, namely that current FEDERAL law also forbids the complete transfer?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com