Vicki Iseman: Blanket Defamation
I’m looking forward to Vicki Iseman’s defamation suit against the NYT, if only because we’re bound to see an argument over whether or not Iseman asked McCain to share a blankie with her. And an argument about the proper role of a lobbyist.
Iseman alleges two counts of defamation:
The first defamatory meaning was that Ms. Iseman exploited an alleged personal and social friendship with Senator McCain to obtain favorable legislative outcomes for her clients, engaging in "inappropriate" behavior that constituted a conflict of interest and a violation of professional and ethical norms in breach of the public trust. This meaning was communicated through the literal words of the article and also by implication, by what was intentionally suggested and implied "between the lines."
The second defamatory meaning was that Ms. Iseman and Senator McCain had engaged in an illicit and inappropriate romantic relationship while Ms. Iseman was a lobbyist conducting business on behalf of clients before the committee chaired by Senator McCain. This was also defamation per se under Virginia law. This meaning was also communicated through the literal words of the article and by implication, by what was suggested and implicated "between the lines."
Focusing on the second allegation first, they’re going to be relying heavily on the "between the lines" meaning here, since the original NYT article clearly printed Iseman’s and McCain’s denial of an affair and instead focused on the appearance of close ties–of any sort–with a lobbyist.
Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
What was at issue in the article was the appearance of an affair, not an affair itself, and the beliefs of McCain staffers about that appearance of an affair.
By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.
A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.
Sure, Iseman’s lawyers may try to force the NYT to produce these two staffers, but the issue centers on whether these staffers did in fact have the concern that the relationship might or had grown romantic and whether they did in fact get orders to keep her away from McCain, not whether McCain did have a romantic relationship with Iseman, which the story does not allege.
Which brings us to their first allegation of defamation–which is fascinating for its structure and assumptions:
… that Ms. Iseman exploited an alleged personal and social friendship with Senator McCain to obtain favorable legislative outcomes for her clients, engaging in "inappropriate" behavior that constituted a conflict of interest and a violation of professional and ethical norms in breach of the public trust …
They’re basing their claim on an "alleged personal friendship," but that’s not what they’re bugged about. Rather, Iseman’s lawyers are arguing that doing so would be "inappropriate." Inappropriate, for a lobbyist. And further, they’re arguing that the NYT insinuated doing so would be a "conflict of interest." For whom?!?!? For Iseman’s clients, who got what they paid for, favorable legislative outcomes? And, finally, they’re arguing that doing so would be a violation of professional and ethical norms. Thus, the paragraph suggests that using an "alleged personal friendship" to get legislative favors would be unprofessional and unethical.
You see, I think this suit is going to raise some interesting questions about the proper role of a lobbyist.
Which will, in turn, focus on Vicki Iseman’s methods. Which, as the National Journal reported (apparently, without being sued for defamation), were noticed on the Hill.
Former Senate aides, speaking anonymously, say that they saw no evidence that Iseman had a personal relationship with McCain, but they add that she could be flirtatious while working the Hill.
The NYT story also made clear that one issue was Iseman’s claims about her relationship with McCain, not her actual relationship with him.
Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” [my emphasis]
An allegation that Weaver repeated for the National Journal.
"The conduct I was talking about," he says, "was her telling people that she had unusual access to the [Senate] Commerce Committee and the Senate office" of McCain.
So Iseman seems to have fewer complaints with the National Journal story, which alleges she flirted and was saying that she had great access to McCain. Both of which would seem to go to the question of her approach to lobbying.
As I alluded, though, I’m most interested in the report that Iseman seemed to believe that John Weaver was behind allegations that Iseman invited McCain to share her blankie on her famous plane ride back from FL–something Weaver denied.
Curiously, though, Iseman knows precisely who might leak a story that she asked McCain to share a blanket with her once.
Iseman told National Journal that [John] Weaver was the unidentified aide who The Times‘ story said flew back to Washington on Paxson’s corporate jet with Iseman and McCain after the Florida fundraising event in February 1999. She says that The Times had asked her, in an e-mail, about an incident on the plane in which she reportedly asked McCain to share a blanket with her. Only Weaver, she says, could be the source for that allegation, which she heatedly denied. The Times did not publish the allegation, and Weaver strongly denies being the source of that information. [my emphasis]
This is what I don’t get. If she’s certain that only Weaver could be the source of the allegation, doesn’t that suggest she knows he–the only aide on the plane–was witness to something that only he would know? If she hadn’t asked to share her blankie with McCain, couldn’t anyone be the source for the allegation?
When Iseman first tried to defend her reputation, she went directly after Weaver–whose allegations have been on the record, but careful.
Interestingly, a lot of the language in this suit doesn’t really apply to lobbyists–such as the claim that NYT reported that Iseman had violated the public trust. That’s language straight out of the original NYT article–though used to refer to McCain, not Iseman.
Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. “I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,” he said.
[snip]
Mr. McCain’s presidential campaign issued the following statement Wednesday night:
“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
This suit seems to be an attempt to force the NYT to reveal the anonymous Senate sources who may well be sources for the National Journal article as well, to which Iseman’s lawyers appear to have no objections. But also, it seems to be an attack on the NYT for allegations that Iseman, at least, seems to believe come from Weaver.
All of which is my roundabout way of saying this seems to be an attack on Weaver.
At least according to the National Journal, there’s no question that Iseman has suffered from the story about her lobbying efforts of McCain.
Former Senate staffers who know Iseman well say that she faces an uphill battle to re-establish her credentials on Capitol Hill. "This town can eat you up — and that’s what happened to her," a former McCain aide says. "That’s what happens sometimes in the Washington fast lane." Separately, another former Senate aide says that Iseman has become "kind of toxic" on the Hill. "She will be forever linked," he says, "as the lobbyist in question with John McCain."
But from the two main stories on her lobbying of McCain suggest that the suit will come down to the allegations about Iseman’s own claims about her relationship with McCain as much as allegations the NYT reported. Which may well amount to an attack–one framed in terms used by McCain’s team as much as anything else–on John Weaver.
Okay, my first questions:
1. We see that this is aimed at the NYT. That would be the same NYT that actually did some reporting on the seedy, disgusting interconnections between some of McCain’s top ’strategists’ and their lobbying interests: Ukrainian politicians, Israeli telsat companies, Pegasus Capital Advisors, Soviet Georgia….
A quick Google search offers an easy, quick start and overview:
McCain Finds a Thorny Path in Ethics Effort (20 May 2008)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05…..ccain.html
In McCain Campaign, a Lobbying Labyrinth (25 May 2008)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05…..davis.html
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk (21 Feb 2008)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02…..ccain.html
Or this particular gem,
In Split Role, McCain Adviser Is Sometimes a Lobbyist (13 Aug 2008)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08…..ccain.html
Not to make Vicki Iseman look like a chump, but compared with Scheuemann, she appears to be a piker:
Okay, it’s true, I kind of put that in for holiday laughs, just to remind us all how close we came to dodging THAT bullet in 2008…
Which leads to –
(2) Does Iseman really have the moola to be suing the NYT? Wouldn’t that be kinda spendy? Does she really have the money to go up against the NYT?
(3) Wouldn’t it be a safe bet that Rick Davis, and Randy Scheunemann, and some of the other genuinely sleazoid ‘entreprenuers’ — including the festering K-k-k-karl Rove — are still pissed as hell at the NYT? BUT they can’t sue over intimations of ’sexual favors’ or whatever.
(4) Would these guys help pool $$ into a ‘let’s fund Vicki to sue the NYT’ Pool-O-Rama? Of course they would. All they need to do is keep it out of the news. What’s in it for Vicki? Maybe some future with Davis Manafort?
Now, far be it from me to malign such sleazy, unprincipled Mensas like the cabal that advised John McCain to select Sarah Palin at his VP. Clearly, these
asshatsnoble citizen Mensas what they’re doing.If I were the WaPo or any other media entity, I’d have fun with this little seeming-distraction for the NYT.
Bear with me.
I’d phone up the legal division of the NYT and say, “How much help can I give you?” And then I’d fund money to get an investigation into how Vicki has such financial wherewithal to sue the NYT.
Because the way that I read this, she’s the front person for Other Interests, if you follow me.
Probably some people want a little ‘payback’ to the NYT for some (ahem) less than complimentary information about their clients, alliances, and former lobbying projects.
This sure looks like ‘payback’ at the NYT, and I hope that the NYT has a ton of fun with it.
I’d advise them to do a ‘quick annual review’ of some of the OTHER McCain lobbying connections, especially seeing as how some of those players probably also connect up with Corker and McConnell.
It’s possible that Vicki is this stupid.
I figure she’s a tool for the others who’d prefer to stay out of the limelight and use her as their tool to distract the NYT and suck resources. I think the rest of the media ought to look at this as pure attempt at intimidation, and they ought to say: GAME ON!!!!!!
Yup, un-hunh, ayuh, certainment.
Time to buy some popcorn.
Only if the mediaMSM gets some guts.
If I were MSNBC.com, or CNN, or WaPo, or just about anyone, I think that I’d be calling around to my pals for signs that people are getting sued.
It would be awfully nice to see the MSM ‘recoup’ their 2008 news items, including the following info about other lobbyists linked with McCain and his campaign, like Scheunemann, who has listed Soviet Georgia among his clients:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind…..cheunemann
Before founding Orion Strategies, Scheunemann had worked at Mercury Strategies. Given all these constellation-and-ancient-mythology sounding names being bandied about, one wonders if he’s ever worked for Private Equity firm Cerberus…? I have no clue, but it would appear to fit the pattern…
So a couple thoughts:
1. Vicki’s desperate, out of options, and convinced herself the NYT done her wrong — but if that’s the case, one does wonder if she’s been sobbing on any sympathetic, well-funded shoulders…?
2. People like Scheuemann can’t go after the NYT directly, and are cheering Vicki from the sidelines.
3. Someone(s) are ’sending a message’ to the Plantation Caucus to get back in line, and follow orders. Or they’ll be linked in public papers with less than stellar associations, with McCain being a Cautionary Tale held up to keep them shackled.
4. None of the above, it’s just random weirdness.
Popcorn, please…
You know who else outsources labor to the Ukraine? Barbara West’s husband Wade West.
Barbara West is the Central Florida newscaster who hammered Joe Biden with the nonsensical right-wing diatribe.
Wow, that is one very interesting ‘tea leaf’.
I’m feeling it adds heft to my argument ;-))
Sounds like you are on the right track.
Also a warning to other prominent media that they could suffer same, making them more reluctant to publish dirty linen on pols.
I agree that there’s more here than meets the eye. Iseman can’t possibly recover her “reputation” by having all this garbage in the public eye for every jot & tittle of the lawsuit. The Streisand effect, dontcha know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
I hope to heck that the NYT fights this. Does Iseman really want to drag McCain’s personal life through the mud?
He might have counted the blankets, decided there were actually enough to give a blanket to the lobbyist, and presented it to the lobbyist at the door with the polite and discrete comment, ‘Glad to let you have one of these, there are plenty others, I counted them. So I’ll be ok with one less blanket there.’ I know a gentleman who responded to a request in nearly that way, verbatim.
To me, this seems bad for McCain. Why would he want to get into any of this? I don’t think she’s going after Weaver at this point; I think she’s going after McCain. She wants the business she used to have or what she knows will come out.
I think that she’s just suing because she’s become radioactive. I’m sure that the Times story caused every aide in the Senate to key an eye on her, which had to have killed her access to people. She used to have an easy job–show up, flirt a little, and get what you want. Those days are over (and the Senate shift to the Dems didn’t help, either), and she doesn’t think it’s fair, so she’s suing.
You have to wonder if this is just an expensive means of engaging in legal blackmail of the McCains. Will she drop it when they agree to settle for an undisclosed sum? As Maeme suggests at 53 perhaps Mrs. McCain also has reason to keep a low profile.
Because if there’s one surefire way to decouple her name from John McCain’s, it would be to sue the New York Times for $27,000,000 for defaming her character in implying, even though the paper explicitly quoted her and Senator McCain to the contrary, that she and McCain had an affair.
Heckuva job, Vicki. That will certainly repair your reputation as a lobbyist on Capitol Hill.
I think Vicki has just lost her mojo on capital hill because she has become too well-known, the Congress has changed parties, the practice of lobbying itself has become a dirty word after Abramoff and she is getting a little too long in the tooth for her “flirting” to continue to successfully open the right doors.
If she is not a particularly self-analytical person, she may attribute everything that is currently happening to her professionally to one clear piece of national publicity – the New York Times article. It certainly was not a career-enhancer for a lobbyist who has traded on her looks and personality. Of course, it was focused on the main character – John McCain – not Vicki.
Or she may just have had a litigious tort lawyer latch onto her, for whatever reasons. The question regarding who is paying for the law suit is a very interesting one. Could this be legal “greymail?” Bring a lawsuit against the NY Times for a clearly high amount, publicize it, and try to get a settlement from the NY Times?
Those alternatives are not mutually exclusive, either.
One thing is for sure though, she is now going to be radioactive on Capital Hill. No politician is going to dare be seen with her. If her lobbying career has already died, then this could just be an effort to get a nest egg to fund the transition to a new career.
Problem with that is that not only does the NYT fight suits like this every time, there are media consortiums that will back it in doing so. Nobody want to open the door to this crap; there will be no quiet settlement. That will not happen.
Here is the website of Iseman’s lawyers. They are personal injury lawyers, with a long list of areas, including slip and fall. And, get this,
Maybe that explains the typo in paragraph 21.
Heh heh. Know how you get in “Best Lawyers in America”? Make sure your firm subscribes to their service, buys a couple of their reference books at a couple of hundred bucks a pop and then have your firm administrator nominate the lawyers in your firm you want listed. Then you have your attorney friends in your town send off a couple of glowing confidence votes and viola you are in the “Best Lawyers in America”. Bout the same as for Martindale-Hubbell, although getting an AV rating in M-H is a tad more difficult (but not that much; they gave it to my old firm).
Just a brief interlude. Since the last Trash Talk is closed …
My Rose Bowl prediction
Sorry. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming
And … Happy New Year
Who was that guest here the other day that assured FDL that the Iseman/McCain affair was valid and that Cindy McCain has an ongoing affair herself?
Awww, man. I always miss the juicy bits around here.
These last few weeks have been a pleasant respite from many months filled with the semi senile prattle of John McCain.
the gray lady is in dire straights and the right wing wants to bury what remains of the fourth estate
what they haven’t realised is this will promote her not bury her, I believe they should look forward to this contest it will serve them well
The NYT should be sued not by Iseman, but by the American Citizenry for presenting Judy Miller’s warmongering propaganda and other warmongering as truth.
I agree, but the stuff they printed this year about some of McCain’s lobbyists was pretty rank, and to feel fair-minded I have to give them some props for some of the stuff they dug up on Davis, and on Scheuemann. They sure as hell should have been printing it in 2002 and 2003, but they **did** print it this year at a time when McCain was still ahead in the race.
Also, note that they are in financial trouble. I think perris @12 has a point, and it’s underscored by bmaz’s assessment that this is weird.
But IANAL, and I think it’s bizarre.
Which makes me suspect there’s something more behind the scenes.
And with a very, very slender GOP hand by one cloture vote on the Senate, someone’s surely signaling the GOP Senators to shape up and get in line.
(Wow, would it ever be fun sometime to get Sen Jim Webb’s take on this stuff.)
Personally, I’m with whoever said the NYT ought to have fun with it.
I think the blogs ought to join them ;-))))))
I’m sure the NYT has insurance for this kind of garbage suit. It probably has a sizeable deductible, but that is just a cost of doing business. Remember they had plenty of time to vet this story, so they are in great shape to stuff Vickie.
Yeah, no kidding. Have you read the complaint? Very oddly pled if you ask me. This is bizarre.
I agree it is oddly drafted. The lawyers recite quotes from the article that make it clear that aides told the NYT of their concerns about the relationships, which the aides believed were inappropriate, and when they confronted McCain about that he agreed. From this the lawyers conclude that the only plausible reading was that inappropriate stuff was a sexual relationship. The aides clearly were concerned that the relationship might be sexual, but no one says that in the article, and the lawyers turn to silly stuff, including conclusory allegations and italics. I remember reading the article twice when it came out, and discussions of it by EW and others, and I never saw the sex stuff as more than a possible concern. The article was careful to make that pretty clear.
A good defense for the NYT to the complaint is that Iseman got special favors from McCain for her clients. Wouldn’t you love to do some discovery on her clients, their interests, and McCain’s votes?
You bet I would, and I bet the NYT would too. But if Iseman thinks her name is mud now, just wait until she drags her former clients/clients through discovery on this near hopeless complaint only to lose. Man, it can get one heck of a lot worse Miss Vicki.
I really do not understand this action. This is a loser writ large.
“a loser writ large”
I don’t agree with the take the communications law prof the WSJ interviewed had, that the case “may well” turn on the distinction between whether Miss Vicki is a private or ‘modified’ public figure; but it does provide an opportunity for the Times to raise one of my all time favorite never-got-a-chance-to-use-it-in-court arguments: The Icarus Gambit.
Though in deference to the sub-blankety luminosity of Miss Vicki, it might come out as the Moth To the Candle Variation.
The law, civil or criminal, is not my forte. I’m gonna be content to hide and watch. I’m easily entertained.
This is a stupid complaint to file. Unless, perhaps, you are looking for the most nominal settlement imaginable so you can claim some kind of “moral victory” in a vain attempt to revive a moribund career.There is not a chance in hell that the NYT would give that even if such was the point. Curious that she filed in Federal district court on what are effectively state law claims. I would have filed in state court and made the defendant seek removal to Federal court if they could. This complaint reads more like a pulp fiction novella than a legal complaint, and is about the egos and vanity of Iseman and Rod Smolla than the law. Legally this is a total pile of dung. Attorney fees ought to be awarded to the defendants when this is over.
If she’s “radioactive” she likely needs/wants Money. She’s been dropped like so much used Xmas wrapping and likely figured that a nuisance suit would be worth a couple of million.
The reporters aren’t going to give up their sources and Vicki knows that — unless (like Scooter) they give permission. She’s had a chance to check on every aide, former aide, and former-former aide and likely they’ve all denied providing the NYT with anything at all. Is there some unspoken but clear message in the McCain Senate office that anyone who might have given info will be out of a job? If so, they wouldn’t want to give their permission even if the reporters are sent to jail a la Judy Miller.
Why did she file in Virginia? Is it just because they are a conservative court? Does she live there? Has she figured out a way to go court-shopping?
As for funding, there are plenty of people around who would like nothing more than to tie up the NYT in a lawsuit (even fair and balanced competitors could be on this list). This is the true-face of post-partisan America. I can only hope that Obama is paying attention.
Need to save this and Coleman’s numerous suits for the next time the rethugs start jumping up and down about frivolous law suits.
472 hrs & 35 min
There was some Law School commentator on The NewsHour talking about how much Obama’s court selections/trends will be the Activist judges….finally ,the other guest lawyer pointed out what a meaningless phrase that is. Thank goodness. They need some new lines.
EW or bmaz, did you see this legal opinion from Mukasey…
Any comment…?
This subject was covered extensively right here on this very blog back when it really happened, over five months ago. There were several posts back in July, including this one. The current stuff is extremely old news, they appear to just be releasing a formal opinion for what they relied on previously.
Ah, I see, I see said the blind man… Btw, it looks like the Chick-Fil-A Bowl is gonna be a shootout…!
The Vanderbilt bowl game was very good and they won! This is all a once in a lifetime thing you know….
Actually a Vanderbilt bowl win is a twice in my lifetime thing.
Dude, don’t date yourself!
I’m thinking all that’s been added by now releasing the “opinion” [That term can’t be accurate for a Bush administration DoJ memo – opiñata?] is that AG Muk can move a piece of business from his “IN” basket to his “OUT” basket before leaving, and not at all incidentally to throw up a little impediment to being held in contempt. IOW housecleaning before the new Congress is sworn in.
In other words, it is imperative to perpetuate cover for the WH bastards under executive privilege rhetoric because if anyone ever found out what they really said and did . . . . and btw, does anyone believe there are still records of any of this? Just askin’ before I go to the New Year’s Eve purity ball. Bwahahahahaha!!
Of course there are records, you think Pat Fitzgerald doesn’t have copies of his interviews???
Sorry, I only see the satin dress wondering. I’ve heard of putting a Kleenex in the cuff of a sleeve when you have no pockets but not in underwear. I’m so sorry. new yrs eve and all. I’ll go back to my cubby now.
The dress, and its rumpliness, are a long-standing mystery hereabouts. Whatever do you think it represents?
cellulite
Me thinks that’s her chastity belt. Ya gotta pay to play …
Dunno. Seems like the person most likely to be moved by this is McCain, and his honcho GOP buddies who thought Iseman was radioactive after the Times article. I’m sure he wants this in the headlines like he wants a hernia.
May be who she’s hoping to un-freeze, in a roundabout way.
Maybe, but the better way for that would have been to get some sympathetic press pieces distributed. Filing this crap in Federal court is a quick way to be hammered and hit with the imposition of attorney fees.
Only if the NYT asks for them, which would only perpetuate this. I’m guessing they don’t want that.
Nothing like a lawsuit to get everyone’s attention.
Well, you get to request imposition of attorney fees against the adverse party when you win. From what we know now (hey they may get discovery and show different, but methinks not), the NYT is going to win. You can bet your farm and estate that, if they win, the NYT is going to seek full costs and fees against the defendant. Recovery of costs is a given in that situation, you would likely have to make a showing of spurious pleading to get costs, but I see no reason the NYT would not so seek if they have already won. You would want to do this both to get the money and to discourage future litigants.
Totally idiotic frivolous lawsuit. She wants to cash out now, not have to work, get some shots in at the Times and intimidate them to settle out of court.
Her reputation is not worth $27MM. Where’d she come up with that nonsence? Is that supposed to be the income she can’t make because of the slur? I thought any publicity is valuable and can be taken to the bank if you’re smart.
I suspect this will never see a court room except for a summary judgment to dismiss.
I love the smell of whining neo-conservatives in the morning-or any time. Poor Vickie, she shares a blankie with Crazy John and people think it is an affair. There is Gonzo. Alberto cannot find a job because people think he is evil, rather than a victim of the terrorists.
As noted by Ctutle at #20, even Darth is whining and also being picked on for illeglly revealing Plames’ CIA connection. As everyone knows it is good to be king when Executive Privilege protects you from crimes.
How can future Presidents violate the law when they have to be accountable? I think I am going to cry, it is so so sad. RawStory does give credit to the Blogger Emptywheel.
Ah, so now the picture starts to emerge. I fully expect that natural-born bloodhound our Fearless Leader will get right on the trail of this “emptywheel” creature.
Once whole walking through a large building at Lockheed with one of their male engineers, the engineer was approached greeted warmly and embraced by a fairly attractive fortyish female. Afterwards, as we proceeded on, he told me: She used to work here, in our department. one year, when evaluation time came, the department head began approaching every male in the dept. asking if we had slept with the woman. He handed the evaluation form to the first to say no, saying, here you fill this damned thing out.
In other news, we have heat at our house for the first time since Xmas eve!
That’s entertainment
The merits of Vicki’s case notwithstanding, this looks like another rethuglican plot to boost SNL’s 2009 ratings. It worked before, bringing Tina Fey back as Caribou Barbi. Amy Poehler is a dead ringer for Iseman.
Is that what the kids are calling it today?
Only when the Iseman cometh.
Happy New Year’s y’all.
I can hardly wait for whatever Sy Hersh starts to publish after Jan 20th. I look forward with giddy excitement to people following through on their promises to tell him their stories AFTER 20th January. No doubt Hersh will be fully booked through 2010 just catching up with the major items. (Maybe we’ll even learn what happened back in Aug 07 with that weird flight over Syria, eh?)
Here’s hoping for more snark, insights, and Trash Talk in 2009.
Take care, drive safe, and best of health and happiness to all who visit here.
Yes, and don’t forget the Dan Rather law suit that will unwind and untangle CBS’s web in 2009.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..wsuit-bush
hey… not bad, b.
I dunno. I think they were focusing on the “between the sheets” meaning.
I would like to know who was the initial contact with Iseman about use of her clients corporate jets to fly members of the Saudi royal families and Bin Laden family out of the country immediately after 9-11 extensive research has been done about her clients planes being uses.
I’d also love to know if Mrs. John Hensley McCain was awarded no-bid contracts for bottled water, soda pop, and bottled beer for our troops stationed in Iraq and around world. John proved himself while on the Commerce Committee, portraying an elected official cleaning up the corruption caused by Abramoff. Guess what? He just replaced Jack’s thugs those that McCain was able to eliminate by indictment or resignation with one of his cronies. That is how he works.
Bingo – when I first heard of the defamation suit I thought “hmm, discovery should be interesting…”
Happy New Year to everyone!
Back at ya!
Hope you didn’t take Georgia Tech and the points….
Yes indeed. Discovery WILL be very interesting (he says with mock Arte Johnson voice). Iseman is a vortex public figure and as such has no recourse under libel law (NYT v. Sullivan, Burnett V. Natl Enquirer, et al). No actual malice from NYT. Reporter merely mentioning unnamed aide (Weaver’s) concern about appearance of impropriety. Also, Paxton head contradicted McCain and Iseman. And does she really want McCain to do a deposition that might reveal who he has slept with in the past 25 years? Good luck with that.
OT — Politico thinks they have the poop on the Senate Ds’ plans (that’d be both the plan A & the plan B) for delaying any effective seating of Burris until Blago’s impeachment, resignation, and/or indictment, i.e. forever. Apologies if this is redundant to any prior linkage posted here, I didn’t notice any such.
Also: This is not intended as an endorsement of such plans, in fact I agree they rather stink. IMHO this was properly a job for the Illinois legislature, who have unfortunately utterly failed to act in the timely manner the circumstances appear to have required. And now we have a great big mess that deprives the Senate Dems of a vote that they really could have used in the early stages of the upcoming stimulus fight. We just don’t need this sideshow overshadowing the real work that needs to get going ASAP… and it was totally avoidable.
Also also: Felicitatious New Year wishes to all and sundry!
The Iseman
comethsueth.My Jayhawks did great yesterday.
Only the SEC and Pac 10 are undefeated. The Vandy win was fun. I’m thinking tomorrow Mississippi has a big surprise for TTech.
Sounds like even if you believed everything she said is true, she still hasn’t stated a valid claim for defamation.
I’m with JimWhite!
Texas Tech better bring their whips and chairs or Ole Miss will Maul them – those guys can play football!
Pillow-Talking Vicki certainly picked an inauspicious time to be marketing herself as the righteously angry Joan of Lobby…Patron Saint of Neocon Deal-Doers.
Unusual access to the committee chair…gone.
So who is paying her legal fees? Certainly she has backing. Knowing that would make this stupidity much more clear.
Which of her clients has the most to gain from this suit happening?
I haven’t made it past 20 or so in the comments, but I’d think the paper will have fun with this – it sure opens the door to some juicey opportunities to try for disocvery against McCainco as the sideshow on this, but with counts like the one pulled in the post
they’d have to deliberately fumble the ball to get to discovery on this. It’s pretty garbled, but as a lobbyist, she didn’t hold a position of public trust to be breached. It may be there on a closer reading, but I’m failing to find a legal claim that matches up with the statements they are saying constitute a claim.
OT – reported elsewhere this morning some story about Burris and trying to convict an innocent man. I don’t know whether the story is right or wrong, fair or unfair, but the point that stands out is that members of his staff quit rather than work for wrong. That’s the failure of the last 5 +/- years (depending on when you want to beleive that even pretty dense lawyers would realize they were volunteering to work for state sponsored torture) – federal prosecutors and agency lawyers, by the droves – thousands and thousands, all failed to have that base line morality.
It doesn’t really matter now who gets stuck where on the DOJ heirarchy – bc the institution is the people and they’ve had years to show who and what they are, and that won’t change now.
I agree, we need to clean house at DOJ. I’m ready to move on….
Mary, the labored sentence you quoted could be interpreted this way: she did all of those things, and all she’s denying is that it breached the public trust. In the light of day, it still seems to me that she’s going after McCain with this.