C
Citizen Jimserac
Guest
On Feb 22, 3:12 pm, John <john...@comcast.net> wrote:
> A Hole in McCain's Defense?
>
> An apparent contradiction in his response to lobbyist story.
> By Michael Isikoff
> Newsweek Web Exclusive
> Updated: 11:33 AM ET Feb 22, 2008
>
> A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than
> five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that
> his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his
> ties to a Washington lobbyist.
>
> On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain
> might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist,
> Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it
> cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the
> Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of
> Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a
> Pittsburgh television station.
>
> Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign
> issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine
> correspondence handled by his staff--and insisted that McCain had never
> even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter.
> "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator
> McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement
> e-mailed to reporters.
>
> But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source:
> McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain
> said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted
> their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr.
> Paxson had a legitimate complaint."
>
> While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the
> firm's lobbyist about the issue--an apparent reference to Iseman, though
> she is not named--"I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]." McCain agreed that his
> letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be
> an appearance of corruption"--even though McCain denied doing anything
> improper.
>
> McCain's subsequent letters to the FCC--coming around the same time that
> Paxson's firm was flying the senator to campaign events aboard its
> corporate jet and contributing $20,000 to his campaign--first surfaced as
> an issue during his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid. William Kennard,
> the FCC chair at the time, described the sharply worded letters from
> McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, as "highly unusual."
>
> The issue erupted again this week when the New York Times reported that
> McCain's top campaign strategist at the time, John Weaver, was so
> concerned about what Iseman (who was representing Paxson) was saying
> about her access to McCain that he personally confronted her at a
> Washington restaurant and told her to stay away from the senator.
>
> The McCain campaign has denounced the Times story as a "smear campaign"
> and harshly criticized the paper for publishing a report saying that
> anonymous aides worried there might have been an improper relationship
> between Iseman and McCain. McCain, who called the charges "not true,"
> also told reporters Thursday in a news conference that he was unaware of
> any confrontation Weaver might have had with Iseman.
>
> The deposition that McCain gave came in the course of a lawsuit
> challenging the constitutionality of his landmark campaign finance
> reform law, known as McCain-Feingold. The suit sheds no new light on the
> nature of the senator's dealings with Iseman, but it does include a
> lengthy discussion of his dealings with the company that hired her,
> including some statements by the senator that could raise additional
> questions for his campaign.
>
> In the deposition, noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams (who was
> representing the lawsuit's lead plaintiff, Kentucky Sen. Mitch
> McConnell) grilled McCain about the four trips he took aboard Paxson's
> corporate jet to campaign events and the $20,000 in campaign
> contributions he had received from the company's executives during the
> period the firm was pressing him to intervene with federal regulators.
>
> Asked at one point if Paxson's lobbyist (Abrams never mentions Iseman's
> name) had accompanied him on any of the trips he took aboard the Paxson
> corporate jet, McCain responded, "I do not recall." (McCain's campaign
> confirmed this week that Iseman did fly on one trip returning to
> Washington from a campaign fund-raiser in Florida.)
>
> At another point Abrams asked McCain if, "looking back on the events
> with Mr. Paxson, the contributions, the jets, everything you and I have
> just talked about, do you believe that it would have been justified for
> a member of the public to say there is at least an appearance of
> corruption here?"
>
> "Absolutely," McCain replied. "And when I took a thousand dollars or any
> other hard-money contribution from anybody who does business before the
> Congress of the United States, then that allegation is justified as
> well. Because the taint affects all of us." Elsewhere McCain said about
> his dealings with Paxson, "As I said before, I believe that there could
> possibly be an appearance of corruption because this system has tainted
> all of us."
>
> Abrams's purpose at the time was not especially damaging to McCain. The
> lawyer's argument, which he later unsuccessfully made to the Supreme
> Court, was that the "appearance of corruption" was relatively
> commonplace in Washington and therefore too amorphous a standard to
> justify the intrusion on free speech that Congress made by passing a law
> that restricted big-money campaign donations and last-minute campaign
> advertising by outside groups.
>
> In his deposition McCain got the opportunity to emphasize some of the
> same points his campaign made in 2000 and again this week about his
> letters to the FCC at Paxson's behest: that he never pressed the agency
> to rule in Paxson's favor, only to make a decision one way or another.
>
> "My job as chairman of the committee, Mr. Abrams, is to see that
> bureaucracies do function," McCain said. "Bureaucracies are notorious
> for not functioning and not making decisions. I believe that Mr. Paxson
> had a legitimate complaint. Not about whether the commission acted
> favorably or unfavorably, but that the commission act."
>
> But despite McCain's own somewhat detailed descriptions of his
> conversations with Paxson about the matter in the deposition, his
> campaign Thursday night stuck with its original statement that the
> senator never discussed the issue at all with the communications
> executive or his lobbyist.
>
> "We do not think there is a contradiction here," campaign spokeswoman
> Ann Begeman e-mailed NEWSWEEK after being asked about the senator's
> sworn testimony five and a half years ago. "We do not have the
> transcript you excerpted and do not know the exact questions Senator
> McCain was asked, but it appears that Senator McCain, when speaking of
> being contacted by Paxson, was speaking in shorthand of his staff being
> contacted by representatives of Paxson. Senator McCain does not recall
> being asked directly by Paxson or any representative of him or by
> Alcalde & Fay to contact the FCC regarding the Pittsburgh license
> transaction.
>
> "Senator McCain's staff recalls meeting with representatives of Paxson,
> and staff was asked to contact the FCC on behalf of Senator McCain,"
> Begemen continued. "The staff relayed to Senator McCain the message from
> Paxson's representatives. But we have checked the records of the
> Senator's 1999 schedule and it does not appear there were any meetings
> between Senator McCain and Paxson or any representative of Paxson
> regarding the issue."
>
> There appears to be no dispute that Paxson lobbyist Iseman did indeed
> contact McCain's top communications aide at the time about the
> Pittsburgh license issue. Mark Buse, who then served as McCain's chief
> of staff at the Commerce Committee and is now chief of staff in his
> Senate office, recalled to NEWSWEEK that Iseman came by his office,
> talked to him about the issue before the FCC, and left behind briefing
> material that he used to draft the letters under McCain's signature. He
> said there was nothing unusual about this. "That's Lobbying 101," Buse
> said. "You leave paper behind."
>
> But the campaign's insistence that McCain himself never talked to Paxson
> about the issue seems hard to square with the contents of his testimony
> in the McCain-Feingold case.
>
> Abrams, for example, at one point cited the somewhat technical contents
> of one of his letters to the FCC and then asked the witness, "where did
> you get information of that sort, Senator McCain?"
>
> McCain replied: "I was briefed by my staff."
>
> Abrams then followed up: "Do you know were they got the information?"
>
> "No," McCain replied. "But I would add, I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on
> this issue."
>
> "You were?"
>
> "Yes."
>
> Abrams then asked McCain: "Can you tell us what you said and what he
> said about it?"
>
> McCain: "That he had applied to purchase this station and that he wanted
> to purchase it. And that there had been a numerous year delay with the
> FCC reaching a decision. And he wanted their approval very bad for
> purposes of his business. I said, 'I would be glad to write a letter
> asking them to act, but I will not write a letter, I cannot write a
> letter asking them to approve or deny, because then that would be an
> interference in their activities. I think everybody is entitled to a
> decision. But I can't ask for a favorable disposition for you'."
>
> Abrams a few moments later asked: "Did you speak to the company's
> lobbyist about these matters?"
>
> McCain: "I don't recall if it was Mr. Paxson or the company's lobbyist
> or both."
>
> Abrams: "But you did speak to him?"
>
> McCain: "I'm sure I spoke with him, yes."
> URL:http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505
> (c) 2008 Newsweek.com
McCain, now realizing the giant HOLE which
the deposition represents, has decided
that he wants to "move on" and no longer
discuss the issue. And "MOVE-ON" IS EXACTLY
WHAT HE IS GOING TO GET from the American voters.
Meanwhile, in an unrelated development,
McCain's Arizona campaign co-chairman and political
ally Rep. Renzi has been indicted for several
FELONIES.
"Mad Dog" McCain will, any time now, lose
his temper and start BARKING.
Citizen Jimserac
> A Hole in McCain's Defense?
>
> An apparent contradiction in his response to lobbyist story.
> By Michael Isikoff
> Newsweek Web Exclusive
> Updated: 11:33 AM ET Feb 22, 2008
>
> A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than
> five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that
> his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his
> ties to a Washington lobbyist.
>
> On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain
> might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist,
> Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it
> cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the
> Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of
> Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a
> Pittsburgh television station.
>
> Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign
> issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine
> correspondence handled by his staff--and insisted that McCain had never
> even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter.
> "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator
> McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement
> e-mailed to reporters.
>
> But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source:
> McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain
> said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted
> their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr.
> Paxson had a legitimate complaint."
>
> While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the
> firm's lobbyist about the issue--an apparent reference to Iseman, though
> she is not named--"I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]." McCain agreed that his
> letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be
> an appearance of corruption"--even though McCain denied doing anything
> improper.
>
> McCain's subsequent letters to the FCC--coming around the same time that
> Paxson's firm was flying the senator to campaign events aboard its
> corporate jet and contributing $20,000 to his campaign--first surfaced as
> an issue during his unsuccessful 2000 presidential bid. William Kennard,
> the FCC chair at the time, described the sharply worded letters from
> McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, as "highly unusual."
>
> The issue erupted again this week when the New York Times reported that
> McCain's top campaign strategist at the time, John Weaver, was so
> concerned about what Iseman (who was representing Paxson) was saying
> about her access to McCain that he personally confronted her at a
> Washington restaurant and told her to stay away from the senator.
>
> The McCain campaign has denounced the Times story as a "smear campaign"
> and harshly criticized the paper for publishing a report saying that
> anonymous aides worried there might have been an improper relationship
> between Iseman and McCain. McCain, who called the charges "not true,"
> also told reporters Thursday in a news conference that he was unaware of
> any confrontation Weaver might have had with Iseman.
>
> The deposition that McCain gave came in the course of a lawsuit
> challenging the constitutionality of his landmark campaign finance
> reform law, known as McCain-Feingold. The suit sheds no new light on the
> nature of the senator's dealings with Iseman, but it does include a
> lengthy discussion of his dealings with the company that hired her,
> including some statements by the senator that could raise additional
> questions for his campaign.
>
> In the deposition, noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams (who was
> representing the lawsuit's lead plaintiff, Kentucky Sen. Mitch
> McConnell) grilled McCain about the four trips he took aboard Paxson's
> corporate jet to campaign events and the $20,000 in campaign
> contributions he had received from the company's executives during the
> period the firm was pressing him to intervene with federal regulators.
>
> Asked at one point if Paxson's lobbyist (Abrams never mentions Iseman's
> name) had accompanied him on any of the trips he took aboard the Paxson
> corporate jet, McCain responded, "I do not recall." (McCain's campaign
> confirmed this week that Iseman did fly on one trip returning to
> Washington from a campaign fund-raiser in Florida.)
>
> At another point Abrams asked McCain if, "looking back on the events
> with Mr. Paxson, the contributions, the jets, everything you and I have
> just talked about, do you believe that it would have been justified for
> a member of the public to say there is at least an appearance of
> corruption here?"
>
> "Absolutely," McCain replied. "And when I took a thousand dollars or any
> other hard-money contribution from anybody who does business before the
> Congress of the United States, then that allegation is justified as
> well. Because the taint affects all of us." Elsewhere McCain said about
> his dealings with Paxson, "As I said before, I believe that there could
> possibly be an appearance of corruption because this system has tainted
> all of us."
>
> Abrams's purpose at the time was not especially damaging to McCain. The
> lawyer's argument, which he later unsuccessfully made to the Supreme
> Court, was that the "appearance of corruption" was relatively
> commonplace in Washington and therefore too amorphous a standard to
> justify the intrusion on free speech that Congress made by passing a law
> that restricted big-money campaign donations and last-minute campaign
> advertising by outside groups.
>
> In his deposition McCain got the opportunity to emphasize some of the
> same points his campaign made in 2000 and again this week about his
> letters to the FCC at Paxson's behest: that he never pressed the agency
> to rule in Paxson's favor, only to make a decision one way or another.
>
> "My job as chairman of the committee, Mr. Abrams, is to see that
> bureaucracies do function," McCain said. "Bureaucracies are notorious
> for not functioning and not making decisions. I believe that Mr. Paxson
> had a legitimate complaint. Not about whether the commission acted
> favorably or unfavorably, but that the commission act."
>
> But despite McCain's own somewhat detailed descriptions of his
> conversations with Paxson about the matter in the deposition, his
> campaign Thursday night stuck with its original statement that the
> senator never discussed the issue at all with the communications
> executive or his lobbyist.
>
> "We do not think there is a contradiction here," campaign spokeswoman
> Ann Begeman e-mailed NEWSWEEK after being asked about the senator's
> sworn testimony five and a half years ago. "We do not have the
> transcript you excerpted and do not know the exact questions Senator
> McCain was asked, but it appears that Senator McCain, when speaking of
> being contacted by Paxson, was speaking in shorthand of his staff being
> contacted by representatives of Paxson. Senator McCain does not recall
> being asked directly by Paxson or any representative of him or by
> Alcalde & Fay to contact the FCC regarding the Pittsburgh license
> transaction.
>
> "Senator McCain's staff recalls meeting with representatives of Paxson,
> and staff was asked to contact the FCC on behalf of Senator McCain,"
> Begemen continued. "The staff relayed to Senator McCain the message from
> Paxson's representatives. But we have checked the records of the
> Senator's 1999 schedule and it does not appear there were any meetings
> between Senator McCain and Paxson or any representative of Paxson
> regarding the issue."
>
> There appears to be no dispute that Paxson lobbyist Iseman did indeed
> contact McCain's top communications aide at the time about the
> Pittsburgh license issue. Mark Buse, who then served as McCain's chief
> of staff at the Commerce Committee and is now chief of staff in his
> Senate office, recalled to NEWSWEEK that Iseman came by his office,
> talked to him about the issue before the FCC, and left behind briefing
> material that he used to draft the letters under McCain's signature. He
> said there was nothing unusual about this. "That's Lobbying 101," Buse
> said. "You leave paper behind."
>
> But the campaign's insistence that McCain himself never talked to Paxson
> about the issue seems hard to square with the contents of his testimony
> in the McCain-Feingold case.
>
> Abrams, for example, at one point cited the somewhat technical contents
> of one of his letters to the FCC and then asked the witness, "where did
> you get information of that sort, Senator McCain?"
>
> McCain replied: "I was briefed by my staff."
>
> Abrams then followed up: "Do you know were they got the information?"
>
> "No," McCain replied. "But I would add, I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on
> this issue."
>
> "You were?"
>
> "Yes."
>
> Abrams then asked McCain: "Can you tell us what you said and what he
> said about it?"
>
> McCain: "That he had applied to purchase this station and that he wanted
> to purchase it. And that there had been a numerous year delay with the
> FCC reaching a decision. And he wanted their approval very bad for
> purposes of his business. I said, 'I would be glad to write a letter
> asking them to act, but I will not write a letter, I cannot write a
> letter asking them to approve or deny, because then that would be an
> interference in their activities. I think everybody is entitled to a
> decision. But I can't ask for a favorable disposition for you'."
>
> Abrams a few moments later asked: "Did you speak to the company's
> lobbyist about these matters?"
>
> McCain: "I don't recall if it was Mr. Paxson or the company's lobbyist
> or both."
>
> Abrams: "But you did speak to him?"
>
> McCain: "I'm sure I spoke with him, yes."
> URL:http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505
> (c) 2008 Newsweek.com
McCain, now realizing the giant HOLE which
the deposition represents, has decided
that he wants to "move on" and no longer
discuss the issue. And "MOVE-ON" IS EXACTLY
WHAT HE IS GOING TO GET from the American voters.
Meanwhile, in an unrelated development,
McCain's Arizona campaign co-chairman and political
ally Rep. Renzi has been indicted for several
FELONIES.
"Mad Dog" McCain will, any time now, lose
his temper and start BARKING.
Citizen Jimserac
