Thursday, August 14, 2008

Is McCain Reopening the Abramoff Can of Worms?

Republican presidential candidate John McCain plans to attend a fundraiser hosted by Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition who fell from grace during the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Sam Stein, of Huffington Post, says McCain's dalliance with Reed could open an ugly can of worms for the Arizona senator--and those worms could have their roots in Alabama.

Reed helped Abramoff shut down casino games in Alabama, an effort designed to protect the Mississippi Choctaws, an Abramoff client. With Reed's help, the Choctaws poured millions of dollars of support behind Bob Riley's gubernatorial campaign, and Riley unseated Democrat Don Siegelman in an exceptionally close race.

During a Senate investigation, McCain covered up these ties between Abramoff and Riley, causing some to wonder if McCain deserved his reputation as a "straight talker."

Stein says McCain's appearance with Reed might raise those questions even more.

Speaking of Riley, gambling, the Mississippi Choctaws, and religion, I recently discovered a 2007 Alabama lawsuit that shines interesting light on all of those topics.

We will be sharing those details soon.


Anonymous said...

I stumbled across your blog today, and I've got to say that, while it's very interesting, I can't help but believe that most of what you write and the course of actions you pursue are highly counterproductive.

I haven't and probably won't look at the case files, but assuming you've been wronged, your tendency to assume as fact conspiratorial theories supported only by those with extreme political philosophies primarily serves to discredit anything legitimate you have to say. Surely you're not blind to this?

While I wouldn't presume to say that most are false is a "true fact" (redundant?), to assume the opposite smacks of emotionally charged rhetoric trumping logic and/or reason. I also find the way you repeatedly iterate having dispositive "evidence" to back up your allegations troubling in light of the circumstantial (at best) statements you make in support thereof; the inferences required to follow the "logic" inherently require an entrenched view that one political party is inherently immune from corruption, while the other is excessively predisposed to the same. Do you really believe such a dramatic disparity in human nature exists between two parties having equal incentive to gain/maintain power? Does it really appear feesible that it's the ideology that is the genesis of the supposed evil rather than the desire for prominence that applies to all partisan politics?

Finally, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to a certain extent, and assume you've been the subject of some far from equitable/just legal proceedings/actions. However, absent from the entire site is any thought that you may be responsible, even if to a comparatively lesser degree, for any of your misfortune. Given the choice between believing a man could be so unlucky, on the one hand, or that he bears some responsibility for the troubles that befall him, any objective observer will ascribe to the latter. Can you not see that your blog espouses some outlandish theories giving rise to the not so subtle indication that you possess some less than desireable traits?

You are certainly not unintelligent, but you call your judgment into question repetitively. Decisions must be based upon the information at hand, and as an at will employee (as I assume you were), you've presented more than a reasonable basis for dismissal having nothing to do with your First Am rights. (A proprietary interest in your employment you do not have, even as an ee of the state.)

I find it arrogant and wholly w/o tact the way you set forth mixed conclusions of law and fact as lying in your favor and beyond reproach. Given your situation, at least as you see it, I do believe most people would react as you have, maybe. But the persistant rants need to give way to more logical, thoughtful channels. Alleging fraud against the entire Ala Ct of Civil Appeals? Does that really seem cognizabley to you? Even the slightest bit of research would require you to confront the system of notice pleading in our Al state courts, as well as the federal courts. This necessarily allows for judicial discretion in many of the situations you claims as outcome determinative.

You've got to realize that conspiracy carries with it weighty and serious consequences for the very reason you have failed to adequately set forth facts supporting it: it is extremely hard to prove, and circumstantial evidence alone will usually not suffice.

All that said, I do wish you the best in resolving the issue of your home. In that respect, the law is clear, and you should be able to file an action to quiet title to the property and remove the lien.

The ad hominem attacks are terrible, you certainly do not deserve anything approaching what you've endured. Such is the evil of perceived anonymity on the web. In your situation, if I can offer any advice, it may be best to resolve the issue for which you most want redress and make sure you don't act derogation thereof. It may also be wise to avoid summary conlusions that voters aligning with other parties/candidates (esp re POTUS) are ignorant/stupid/idiodic; the haughty/arrogant nature of these statements only makes you look foolish (as do those ringing from the other end of the spectrum).

Anonymous said...

one more point, even though i've probably said more than you'll read already: when conspiratorial fraud/injustice is alleged, the credibility of the proponent is never more important. beware the propensity to endorse any/every assertion of corruption/malfeasance.

legalschnauzer said...

I read every word of your comment. I don't agree with everything you've said, but I'm impressed with the thought and effort you put into it. You make a number of interesting points, and you obviously don't take the subject matter lightly. Good for you, and thanks for participating.


Anonymous said...

you can tell that fella doesn't know that many, many lawyers in Alabama brag about what they "can get by with".
I wonder what he thinks of Horton's legal skills.