disclose, denny

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Randy Evans and FEC

One other thing that i noticed is that Randy Evans also represents HFCC "in connection with all matters pending before the FEC" - we must presume that the VF response was at least partially related to the response to FEC - probably the content, and perhaps the timing.

However the content of the letter to VF is substantially different to the 'justifications' offered in the affadavit to FEC (at least as represented in FEC's response). That strikes me as being really odd (as does the timing).

They are obviously a lot smarter, or a lot stupider, than we are. I can barely think of a plausible scenario.

If I was Evans, it would make sense to respond to VF immediately after the article was published - but after that window of opportunity had passed, it would be best to keep quiet. Having said that, almost by the time that the magazine had hit the newstands, he must have been aware of CREW's complaint. Similarly, if I was Evans, I'd probably make it my business to know when FEC was releasing their response to CREW - and I'd probably hope to have a pretty good understanding of whether there was likely to be anything damaging in the FEC report. But his actions don't seem to reflect any such thing...

Some conspiracy-minded folk might argue that Evans' absurd response in VF was an intentional attempt to fan some flames, only to have them doused by the FEC report - but to the extent that Hastert was seen to be exonerated (ie the aforementioned 'dousing') by the FEC report, then surely a better strategy would have been to let the exoneration speak for itself, without flaming the suspicion in advance with such obvious nonsense. Having said all that, if it wasn't for Miguel and I, the strategy would very probably have been successful - but if so, that would more likely have been by accident, rather than design - they still would have been better off just to let the FEC report speak for itself.

What are the other possibilities?

Is it possible that they were nervous about the FEC report because they were concerned about a possible negative outcome and were trying some pre-emptive media strike? It's difficult to imagine a scenario where that makes any logical/strategic sense.

Is it possible that Evans originally tried to get VF to publish a letter that was full of garbage (akin to the HFCC response to FEC) that VF knew to be false and they refused? again, difficult to imagine - and if it was the case, Evans' best game would have been to accept their refusal to print and just shutup. In fact, judging by the original Rose article, the lawyers were all over the story from the beginning - there sure is a lot missing from the article, and Sibel said that Hastert's camp was repeatedly offered the opportunity to input.

It would be kinda funny if FEC accepted Evans' nonsense response but VF wouldn't accept it, even in an LTE.

there's something happening here. what it is aint exactly clear.

crossposted at wotisitgood4


Post a Comment

<< Home

View My Stats