Re: Darrell McGraw vrs. Wimpy Legislators

by **ziggy** on Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:28 am

Aaron wrote:You didn't even look at the links Jimmy posted, did you!!!

If you did, you wouldn't keep saying ' if ' when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not if, it's true.

I can keep saying "if" as long as you say "it's true". You said that McGraw's contributors with whom he does "business" put "millions" into his campaign. If that's true why don't Jimmy's links that you hang your hat on reflect "millions"?

Even what Jimmy posted shows only a fraction of what one guy- Don Blankenship- poured into a Supreme Court race. Now that was millions. But coal whores are exempt from all the campaign finance Rules According to Aaron, right?
So again, why do you want one set of campaign fimamce rules to apply to some candidates, but another set of campaign fnmamce rules apply to others?

The answer to that is obvious to all of us. You coal whore buddy Don Blankenship really does have millions to by off politicians- like you said he was doing the very day the Aracoma mine caught fire.

But if some lawyer gives a candidate a mere $500 or $1000, well, that's just terrible, isn't it?

Yep, one set of campaign rules for the rich who pay millions for a politician, and another for the poor devils who might scrape together $1,000. That's Aaron's Protect the Status Quo Payola for Politicians Protection Plan.

by **ziggy** on Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:45 am

Aaron wrote:
shermangeneral wrote:I think what really galls these guys is they pay all that money out to buy the Governorship and elect their own guys to all these offfices so they can get a free ride and then McGraw nails them thru the back door and makes them pay their fair share.

Life can be so cruel sometimes OC.

What you said makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

To you it doesn't, of course. That's because you are in denial up to your eyeballs or maybe even haven't a clue about the way West Virginia gubernatorial elections campaigns are financed. But as Sherm notes, sometimes the best governor money can buy cannot guarantee corporate crooks a risk-free existence.

by **ziggy** on Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:33 am

Aaron wrote:So you want to do away with public campaign financing but you don't have a problem with those that have donated millions to McGraw receiving government contracts worth billions.

No one, nor even all the someones that Jimmy cited lumped together, "donated millions" to McGraw, and nobody got any "government contracts worth billions" from McGraw nor from anyone else in state government.

The only candidate who got "millions" from anyone was the 3 million or so Don Blankenship put into the state Supreme Court campaign for Brent Benjamin.

Once again, why do you insist on such fabrications when the truth would set you free?

by Aaron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:21 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:You didn't even look at the links Jimmy posted, did you!!!

If you did, you wouldn't keep saying ' if ' when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not if, it's true.

I can keep saying "if" as long as you say "it's true". You said that McGraw's contributors with whom he does "business" put "millions" into his campaign. If that's true why don't Jimmy's links that you hang your hat on reflect "millions"?

Even what Jimmy posted shows only a fraction of what one guy- Don Blankenship- poured into a Supreme Court race. Now that was millions. But coal whores are exempt from all the campaign finance Rules According to Aaron, right?
So again, why do you want one set of campaign fimamce rules to apply to some candidates, but another set of campaign fnmamce rules apply to others?

The answer to that is obvious to all of us. You coal whore buddy Don Blankenship really does have millions to by off politicians- like you said he was doing the very day the Aracoma mine caught fire.

But if some lawyer gives a candidate a mere $500 or $1000, well, that's just terrible, isn't it?

Yep, one set of campaign rules for the rich who pay millions for a politician, and another for the poor devils who might scrape together $1,000. That's Aaron's Protect the Status Quo Payola for Politicians Protection Plan.

So now you're saying you're not a hypocrite because McGraw didn't take millions, only thousands and you're defense of talking out both side of your a$$ is that Brett Benjamin took more then McGraw so it's fine that he gave government contracts to people who contributed to his campaign.

Dude, I hate to be the one to tell you but whether it's a night at the Mariott for $2000.00 or $15.00 in Jefferson, if you're paying for it, she's still a whore's and you're still a hypocrite.

by **ziggy** on Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:44 am

So whether it's the $15.00 you spent in Jefferson, someone's $1,000 to McGraw, or Blankenship's $3 million dollars to Benjamin, why do you have to lie about it? Who is really the hypocrite here?

by Aaron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:30 pm

You said what you said, you've taken at least 3 positions on the same stance so that clearly shows that you are zig and you know it. So is name calling all you're left with???

So why don't you try addressing Jimmy's post now. He's shown you that McGraw clearly took money from people he was doing business with. Quit ignoring that.

by **ziggy** on Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:28 pm

Aaron wrote:You said what you said, you've taken at least 3 positions on the same stance so that clearly shows that you are zig and you know it. So is name calling all you're left with???

You are the one that started the "hypocrite" name calling on this thread.

All I am doing is holding up a mirror for you.

So why don't you try addressing Jimmy's post now. He's shown you that McGraw clearly took money from people he was doing business with. Quit ignoring that.

I have not ignored it. I opened those links again- looking for what you had said were "millions" to McGraw that you said generated "billions" in government contracts. But they just weren't there. Only $1,000 from each contribitor- just what the law allows- about five hundredths of one percent (.05 %) of what you said it was.

And about three hundredths of one percent (.03%) of what Don Blankenship gave Brent Benjamin.

by **ohio county** on Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:07 am

And while I'm feeling magnanimous and in the interests of full disclosure, I should tell you that I've used the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General's office to great effect for several years. My Dad in his declining years repeatedly fell prey to a bevy of slick out-of-state operators. The North Shore Animal Rescue League made him believe that he had won a lottery and then legally forced him to fulfill his pledges which he thought were required to claim his prize, there was a fortune teller out of Connecticut, purveyors of fruit, clothing, and meat, and concerns that simply preyed on the elderly. The CPD were swift, decisive, and effective in getting him out of some jams he'd never have gotten into had he been in full possession of his faculties. I owe them a debt of gratitude.

Yes, each individual is limited to a donation of $1,000 per election cycle. However, if one DiTrapano gave a thousand dollars then twenty did. In one of those reports, a DiTrapano clearly lists his address as "Italy". I don't believe that Italian nationals are permitted to donate. This is a classic example of "bundling" that allows a contributor to give way beyond the limits imposed by the law. Many of the contributors are clerical employees of law firms. Not a lot of $600 a month clerks can pony up $1000 for political donations. I guess if they really saved...

by Aaron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:19 am

I used them with great success in a recent disagreement with Capitol One. I don't fault the AG's office for going after fraudulent companies regardless of their size.

My problem is in how DM hires and pays for contract work and how he alone decides how millions of West Virginia money is spent.

We're he on the up and up, in my humble opinion, he would ensure that all money is spent properly with ZERO appearance of impropriety. That he doesn’t combined with his hypocritical supporters is where the problem lies.

by **ohio county** on Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:27 am

I think we're in agreement. I don't know that his supporters are hypocrites. I think they're just mistaken.

by **Stephanie** on Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:42 am

ohio county wrote:I think we're in agreement. I don't know that his supporters are hypocrites. I think they're just mistaken.

Jimmy,

I promise you I am going to look at this issue in greater depth later this week. I'm trying to play catch up with all the posts. I'm very pleased the forum has been so active.

I'm commenting mostly to point out the above post is yet another reason why I hold you in such high regard.

by **ohio county** on Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:22 am

Paul Nyden reports a story I believe is generally favorable to the Attorney General:

http://wvgazette.com/News/200802230465

by **ohio county** on Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:44 am

During settlement negotiations, Pharma's own lawyers insisted that the settlement money be used in three ways.

"That was their demand as part of the settlement," Hughes said. "They insisted that the money should go to finance community programs to help drug abusers, law enforcement aimed at reducing substance abuse and medical education to further reduce substance abuse."

When the Marshall County Sheriff’s office cited me for going seventy-one in a fifty-five mile an hour speed zone, I offered to settle if they’d use the proceeds for speeder awareness and what experts call the “Need to Speed” addiction cessation. The Sheriff’s office denied my offer saying they had no authority to accept it. My example is no more fantastic or silly than Ms Hughes’. The presiding judge will accept the settlement terms in virtually every case and it is not a circuit court judge’s purview to decide as to the constitutionality of the settlement. To pretend that the judge’s ruling is one that must be passively accepted is a fiction. The parties to the settlement set the terms and the judge passively accepts them. And that is a fact. To suggest that the defendant in this case (or mine) set the terms for a court settlement is a goddamn lie, a term that I have refused to fling with regard to anyone who posts here or at the old Gazette forums.

The sheer preponderance of the numbers in terms of settlements that have gone to the state Treasury as opposed to settlements like this one allay my fears somewhat, if the numbers presented by Mr. Nyden are to be believed. My greatest fear is that this might be considered a precedent and that if we meekly accept that a Mingo County circuit court judge’s ruling gives the Attorney General’s office broad latitude to spend millions of dollars to buy emery boards containing his name and likeness and keychains we’re bound to see it continue.

The State Senate has reportedly advanced a bill delineating the Attorney General’s right to spend funds and to hire outside contractors. I hope the bill is passed in the Senate and the House or, alternatively, rejected by a huge margine. If it is passed by both houses, I hope the governor signs it or vetoes it with a strong statement. I’d like for the Legislature and the Governor to do their jobs and settle the question once and for all. Then, too, there’s that little matter of the public having their say in the voting booth…

by **ohio county** on Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:46 am

ohio county wrote:
During settlement negotiations, Pharma's own lawyers insisted that the settlement money be used in three ways.

"That was their demand as part of the settlement," Hughes said. "They insisted that the money should go to finance community programs to help drug abusers, law enforcement aimed at reducing substance abuse and medical education to further reduce substance abuse."

When the Marshall County Sheriff’s office cited me for going seventy-one in a fifty-five mile an hour speed zone, I offered to settle if they’d use the proceeds for speeder awareness and what experts call the “Need to Speed” addiction cessation. The Sheriff’s office denied my offer saying they had no authority to accept it. My example is no more fantastic or silly than Ms Hughes’. The presiding judge will accept the settlement terms in virtually every case and it is not a circuit court judge’s purview to decide as to the constitutionality of the settlement. To pretend that the judge’s ruling is one that must be passively accepted is a fiction. The parties to the settlement set the terms and the judge passively accepts them. And that is a fact. To suggest that the defendant in this case (or mine) set the terms for a court settlement is a goddamn lie, a term that I have refused to fling with regard to anyone who posts here or at the old Gazette forums.

The sheer preponderance of the numbers in terms of settlements that have gone to the state Treasury as opposed to settlements like this one allay my fears somewhat, if the numbers presented by Mr. Nyden are to be believed. My greatest fear is that this might be considered a precedent and that if we meekly accept that a Mingo County circuit court judge’s ruling gives the Attorney General’s office broad latitude to spend millions of dollars to buy emery boards containing his name and likeness and keychains we’re bound to see it continue.

The State Senate has reportedly advanced a bill delineating the Attorney General’s right to spend funds and to hire outside contractors. I hope the bill is passed in the Senate and the House or, alternatively, rejected by a huge margin. If it is passed by both houses, I hope the governor signs it or vetoes it with a strong statement. I’d like for the Legislature and the Governor to do their jobs and settle the question once and for all. Then, too, there’s that little matter of the public having their say in the voting booth…

by **Stephanie** on Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:01 am

Jimmy,

I have done some reading on McGraw over the course of the past days. My question is this, is there any evidence settlement funds are being used for trinkets like keychains and emery boards with McGraw's name etc on them?

Also, is the article I read in the Gazz accurate? Has McGraw's office brought in $2 billion dollars with 99.7% of that money went into the state treasury or directly to victims? Is the remaining .3% being spent in accordance with specific terms of settlements?

I still don't have a problem with this. I see no fraud, no deception, nothing unethical about any of it.