Monthly Archives: October 2018

2018 = 1984

19 Friday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

Clean is dirty.

The right wingnut funded Missourians First has signs opposed to Amendment 1 springing up all over like mushrooms. And mushrooms grow in…

And bullshit is always bullshit.

Does anyone think the people who put these signs up on their property really know who paid for them?

Missourians First is the pop up committee (established on August 10, 2018) funded with $200,000.00 from Rex Sinquefield which is opposed to the CLEAN Missouri intiative (Amendment 1) for ethics, campaign finance, lobbying, and redistricting reform on the November ballot.

On October 11, 2018 Missourians First filed a Limited Activity (under $500.00 for the period) quarterly campaign finance report with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Let’s see, Missourians First (really, Rex Sinquefield at this point) is adamantly opposed to a constitutional amendment that will:

Require that legislative records be open to the public by ensuring that the legislature operate under the same open records law as other public entities in Missouri

Require politicians to wait two years before becoming lobbyists after the conclusion of their final legislative session

Eliminate almost all lobbyist gifts in the General Assembly by banning any single gift worth more than $5 — that means no more steak dinners, expensive booze, junkets or sports tickets. This rule would eliminate more than 99% of the lobbyist gift giving happening in Missouri.

Lower campaign contribution limits for state legislative candidates to limit the influence of big money and lobbyists in state government.
Establish new campaign contribution limits for General Assembly candidates— $2,500 for state senate, and $2,000 for state house.
Limit the ability of individuals and organizations to circumvent caps by counting money from single-source committees towards totals for original, actual donors.
Stop legislative fundraising on state property.

Ensure that neither political party is given an unfair advantage when new maps are drawn after the next census by asking a nonpartisan expert to draw fair legislative district maps, which would then be reviewed by a citizen commission.
Add fairness and competitiveness as required criteria for new district maps
Protect the political power of minority communities against vote dilution
Ask an independent state demographer to lead on technical work in creating district maps, instead of entrusting political appointees to do all of that work

That would explain a lot.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: we’re not surprised (October 9, 2018)

Campaign Finance: pro bono publico

19 Friday Oct 2018

Posted by in campaign finance

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission for the initiative on the November ballot which would implement ethics, lobbying, campaign finance, and redistricting reform in Missouri:

C161298 10/19/2018 CLEAN Missouri Langdon & Emison, LLC PO Box 220 Lexington MO 64067 10/19/2018 $20,000.00

C161298 10/19/2018 CLEAN Missouri Edelman & Thompson, LLC 3100 Broadway Suite 1400 Kansas City MO 64111 10/19/2018 $15,000.00

C161298 10/19/2018 CLEAN Missouri SWMW Law 701 Market St Suite 1000 St Louis MO 63101 10/19/2018 $10,000.00

C161298 10/19/2018 CLEAN Missouri Brown & Crouppen PC 211 N. Broadway Suite 1600 St Louis MO 63102 10/19/2018
$10,000.00

C161298 10/19/2018 CLEAN Missouri O’Brien Law Firm, Pc 815 Geyer Avenue St Louis MO 63104 10/19/2018 $7,500.00

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Campaign Finance: we’re not surprised (November 9, 2018)

Tonight’s McCaskill-Hawley debate: a quick rhetoric post-mortem

18 Thursday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , ,

This debate was televised; it’ll be repeated tomorrow at noon on NPR (I think) and most Missouri newspapers will touch on the high points. Consequently, I’m not going to get bogged down (much) in a critique of the substance in these quick notes, but rather offer my impressions of how each candidate performed in terms of  rhetorical effectiveness. Forewith:

Hawley

  • I learned that he’s the father of two little “guys” – it was, in fact, pounded into my brain via incessant repetition. Hawley seems to have no other go-to when trying to describe motivation.

CONS:

  • He lost on substance:
    • He’s obviously spent a lot of time memorizing campaign slogans and GOP talking points.
    • He’s wasn’t ashamed to repeat said slogans and talking points over and over; it’s was insulting to the intelligence of his auditors.
    • He’s wasn’t willing to get lost in the weeds of facts and figures; those he did summon were often incorrect or misleading
    • Since his answers consisted of lots of canned campaign hash, he had lots of time to leave the podium and show his interlocutors (and the TV audience) just what a nice, personable young man he really is.
    • He was perfectly happy to twist facts and mislead his listeners. For example, in answer to a question about whether or not he would support cutting Social Security and Medicare in order to address the Trump deficit, he answered that he would not support cutting these programs for current recipients or those who would receive benefits in the near future – a standard GOP dodge to avoid scaring current pensioners when they propose to privatize or whittle the programs away. He consistently misrepresented the impact of the ACA on insurance prices by failing to note that the growth in premiums is a response to efforts by the GOP congress and the Trump administration to sabotage the program.
    • He continued to repeat specific misleading points even after his facts had been corrected, e.g., he insisted a second time – even after McCaskill corrected his earlier statement – that she supported the “Waters of the U.S.” rule. In fact, McCaskill actually joined Republicans to vote to scrap the rule in its then form.
    • He seemed awfully studied and slick and determined to do the full George W. Bush – repeat dumb talking points over and over.
    • He was consistently on the attack – understandable since he doesn’t have a record of achievement to which he could refer.

PROS:

  • Hawley won on style:
    • He spent lots of time repeating campaign slogans. It may seem insulting to careful listeners, but rhetoricians tell us that to effectively persuade large numbers of people, we need to keep the message simple and repeat it over and over. Hawley’s got that routine down and he probably went over well with lots of viewers.
    • He’s not willing to get lost in the weeds of policy talk. We’re told that complicated, fact-filled arguments go right through both ears for many listeners, so this was probably a positive for Hawley who delivered answers that were simplistic often to the point of dishonesty – but with an air of authoritative conviction.
    • Since his answers consisted of lots of canned campaign hash, he had lots of time to leave the podium and show his interlocutors (and the TV audience) just what a nice, personable young man he really is.
    • He was calm, collected and cool as ice. If McCaskill got under his skin, he didn’t let anyone know except when he decided that a little high (or medium-high) dudgeon could be exploited for rhetorical effect.

Claire McCaskill:

  • She’ll soon be a grandmother for the 12th time – and, no, she only let that fact drop once – there was no serious effort to curry favor via grandchildren. Thank God. I don’t need my politicians “humanized,” just competent.

PROS:

  • She won on substance:
    • She had her facts down – and almost everything she says can be verified.
    • She devoted more time to describing her positions than describing her opponents shortcomings. This approach was notable in the concluding statements; Hawley spent used the statement to continue condescending to McCskill who is, he implied, past her use-by date – to paraphrase, a good enough person whose desiccated liberalism doesn’t resonate wth today’s Missourians.
    • She could concentrate on her achievements because she has a real of record of hard work and experience that informed her answers.
    • She didn’t condescend to her audience. She seemed to assume that they could deal with what goes into making policy and don’t have to be fed responses cribbed from TV ads.
    • She made it clear that she tries to represent all Missourians, not just a particular tribe, even if it means that she makes all Missourians angry at one time or another (not all at the same time, though).

CONS:

  • She lost on style
    • She had all her facts down, lots of them – and tried to cram them all into short answers which can have the effect of making them seem less coherent or convincing. Also lots of people, we’re told, just don’t listen to or remember complex, detailed responses. (Although I personally was delighted with her command of facts and nuance – that, after all, is where the “truth” lies.)
    • She seemed to become agitated and uncomfortable much of the time which undercut her effectiveness
    • She seemed overeager at times which contrasted with Hawley’s relaxed demeanor.
    • Even though she clearly wanted to emphasize her centrism, she could have done so and still defended many of her past positions more forcefully, with less meandering explanation. There’s no need for her to be apologetic.
    • She can be good at being forceful and letting her tough side show – I’ve seen her do it. I wish she’d done it more tonight.

Summary

Tonight’s debate seemed like an exercise which was intended to show whether substance dominates style or vice versa,  the outcome of which we probably won’t know until November 6. You have also probably also noticed – particularly in regard to Hawley – that many of the “pros” are also “cons.” That’s because it’s all a matter of perspective.

* Slightly revised for style an clarity (11:43 pm, 10/18/2018).

Well, Josh, you did ask for it…

18 Thursday Oct 2018

Posted by in Claire McCaskill, social media, US Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Josh Hawley (r) doesn’t appear to be that adept at this law stuff.

Josh Hawley (r) [2016 file photo].

Yesterday, via social media:

Josh Hawley @HawleyMO
Senator, accusing people of crimes is a serious thing. If you have evidence of a crime, please come forward with it immediately. Otherwise, please stop politicizing the legal process for your reelection. #MOsen
4:42 PM – 17 Oct 2018

Dude, Claire McCaskill (D) was Jackson County Prosecutor from 1993 to 1998.

In the past Senator McCaskill has expressed her opinion of Josh Hawley’s legal bona fides:

…Well, it would be hard not to follow it. The law is pretty clear. There’s never been an Attorney General in the history of our state that hasn’t lived in Jefferson City because the law says shall. He’s, listen, I’m a Mizzou educated lawyer, but I can keep up. [laughter] And I know what the word shall means in the law. Now I know he went to Yale, I think, or Harvard, one of those, one of those fancy ones. Um, I think they taught him the same thing, shall is shall. So if it’s shall then you must live in Jefferson City. And you are not legally entitled to vote somewhere other than where you live. Oh there’s a problem here…

Okay.

Well, Josh, you did ask for it:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Contact: Meira Bernstein and Eric Mee [….]
McCaskill for Missouri Files Complaint to Demand Attorney General Appoint a Special Prosecutor

MISSOURI — Today, McCaskill for Missouri filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s office to demand that Attorney General Josh Hawley appoint a special prosecutor to further investigate fraud committed by James O’Keefe and Project Veritas against the McCaskill campaign. Counsel for the McCaskill campaign has delivered a letter to the Attorney General’s office laying out clear violations by O’Keefe and his organization of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, 407 RSMo, for which the Attorney General has primary responsibility.

Given the Attorney General’s promotion and encouragement of this fraud, the campaign is requesting a special prosecutor.

See below for full text of the letter delivered to the Attorney General’s office, and to view the exhibits referenced in the letter below, click here [pdf].

October 18, 2018

Attorney General Josh Hawley
Missouri Attorney General’s Office
Supreme Court Building
207 W. High Street
P.O. Box 899
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102

Re: Complaint, Evidence of Crime, and Request for Special Prosecutor to Investigate Possible Felonies Committed by Project Veritas

Attorney General Hawley:

I represent Claire McCaskill and McCaskill for Missouri. As you are aware from public reports, a “not for profit” group called Project Veritas (led by convicted criminal, James O’Keefe) recently admitted that it used false pretenses to gain access to Ms. McCaskill and individuals associated with her campaign. Project Veritas then secretly filmed interactions and released the footage publicly.

There is probable cause to believe that Project Veritas has committed a class D felony under Missouri law. We request you appoint a special prosecutor and forward this complaint to them for further investigation and charges as appropriate. Given your current candidacy for the Senate seat held by Ms. McCaskill, we are sure you will agree that it would be appropriate for you to recuse yourself from the matter. In addition, you have actively promoted these illegally obtained videos for the perceived benefit of your own campaign, which calls for recusal.

Based on public reporting, we understand you are at least generally aware of the situation. The Kansas City Star has quoted you as saying, “if you have evidence of a crime, please come forward with it immediately.” Jason Hancock, McCaskill demands Hawley’s office investigate hidden/camera videos of her campaign, KANSAS CITY STAR, October 17, 2018.

We do have such evidence and here it is.

The Attorney General has primary responsibility for enforcement of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, Chapter 407 RSMo. The Act clearly applies to this situation. In Missouri, it is unlawful to use deception, fraud, and misrepresentation “in connection with” the “solicitation of any funds for any charitable purpose.” 407.020, RSMo. The use of deception, false pretense, etc… is illegal regardless of whether “committed before, during or after the…solicitation.”

Project Veritas is a “charitable” organization. It applied for and was granted tax exempt status by the IRS (EIN 27-2894856). (See Exhibit A, Project Veritas IRS Form 990s for 2015 and 2016) Project Veritas’ filings with the IRS admit that the types of “investigations” at issue here are part of the organization’s mission. In other words, the making of videos under false pretense are an important part of the organization’s effort to raise money. Although Project Veritas does not publicly disclose the names of its donors, we know that they accepted over three million dollars in 2015 and again in 2016. Videos of this type are regularly posted on the Project Veritas website in order to drive traffic to the website and solicit donations from viewers of the videos. (See Exhibit B, Screenshots from Project Veritas Website).

Although Project Veritas is not registered to do business in Missouri, nor is it registered with your office as a charitable organization, Mr. O’Keefe and Project Veritas, blatantly disregarded the requirement of candor and honesty when raising money for a charitable organization by deceptively obtaining access to facilities and individuals in Missouri. To do so, they misrepresented their identity (See Exhibit C, affidavit of Luke Tonant) and deceitfully omitted that they were affiliated with Project Veritas (Id). Neither Ms. McCaskill nor the staffers interviewed would have consented to any conversations at all had they known the individuals were affiliated with convicted criminal, James O’Keefe. (Id.). They also did not disclose they were filming the conversations. (Id.) Mr. O’Keefe’s deceptive and fraudulent practices in Missouri for the purpose of raising money for a “charitable” organization violate the letter and spirit of the law.

This complaint involves a fairly straightforward violation of the law. In 2000, Attorney General Jay Nixon sued the Benetton corporation for similar deceptions. “National News Briefs; Missouri Sues Benetton Over Death Row Ads,” N.Y. Times, February 11, 2000. Courts recognize that trespassing under false pretenses is actionable even when the perpetrator claims to be engaged in “journalism.” In Food Lion Inc v. Capital Cities/ABC Inc., 194 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1999), journalists went undercover to expose unsanitary practices in a grocery store chain. While Project Veritas certainly is not a journalistic endeavor, the real journalists there were found to be trespassing and, while those real journalists deserved some deference under the law, the court found that laws of general applicability will withstand constitutional challenge even though they are being applied to journalists.

Project Veritas is not a journalistic endeavor. Moreover, these individuals knew or should have known that what they were doing was illegal because they have engaged in this unlawful and unacceptable behavior in the past. In 2010, Mr. O’Keefe pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation, community service and required to pay a fine for breaking into Senator Mary Landrieu’s office. (Exhibit D). A Federal Judge called Mr. O’Keefe’s conduct there “nefarious and potentially dangerous.”

Since his sentencing, O’Keefe has also faced a string of lawsuits relating to his continued penchant for misrepresentation. In 2017, the American Federation of Teachers affiliate in Michigan filed suit against Project Veritas for “infiltrating and illegally gathering proprietary information” from AFT. And in June 2018, several organizations filed suit seeking more than $1 million dollars in actual damages plus an undetermined amount for punitive damages for Project Veritas’s similar behavior where a Project Veritas agent posed as an intern to trespass on private property. (See Exhibit E)

In light of these deceptive tactics, you should request a special prosecutor investigate these disturbing events and assist with any additional prosecutions as may be brought by local prosecutors.

Sincerely,

Stinson Leonard Street LLP
Charles W. Hatfield
CWH:CAS

###

There you go.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [2017 file photo].

Previously:

“…So this is really a question for Josh Hawley, what did he know, when did he know it?” (October 17, 2018)

State Rep. Derek Grier – not so moderate after all?

18 Thursday Oct 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

I first met my state representative, Rep. Derek Grier (R-100), when he was canvassing in my neighborhood prior to the 2016 primary elections. He seems to have sussed my proclivities, or, perhaps, realized that the formerly right-wing suburbs were changing. His argument to me was that he was a common sense moderate, far less extreme than Mike Allen, his GOP primary opponent and the husband of the former, term-limited incumbent, Sue Allen.

Grier won the primary, ran unopposed, got elected and that was about the last I heard from him apart from periodic “newsletters” that rarely did more than list new legislation or an occasional slap-dash constituent “opinion” survey. However, in a year that saw the success of right-to-work-for-less legislation, tax cuts for the rich, inroads against women’s reproductive rights, failed efforts to regulate legislators’ lax ethical behavior, and secure adequate funding for infrastructure and education – not to mention the resignation of a Republican governor on grounds of moral turpitude, I heard not a peep from Rep. Grier about where he stood on any of these contentious issues.

So imagine my surprise this week when I received a card listing the “accomplishments” of Rep. Grier’s two years in office, gathered under the rubric of “promises made, promises kept.” My first response: what promises? Could it have been that implicit promise he made during the 2016 primary to moderate the far-right agenda espoused by so many members of Misouri’s GOP?

Certainly, if one looks closely at Rep. Grier’s accomplishment list, at least two of the three highlights he selected to campaign on, such as the anti-human-trafficking bill, HB 1246, emphasize bipartisan appeal. What’s even more interesting is what he’s not drawing attention to. He certainly isn’t boasting about the fact that  his legislative voting record in its entirety lines up almost perfectly with the destructive far-right, anti-worker agenda of the state’s GOP majority. Evidently, he doesn’t want to dwell on votes that indicate support for right-to-work-for-less.  Or his support for restrictions on reproductive freedom – the list is long and not at all bipartisan.

Nor, do all of Rep. Grier’ selected legislative activities stand up well under scrutiny:

—  The main jewel in Rep. Grier’s crown, HB 1719 and HB 1710, legislation which he himself authored, in his words, “eliminated regulations [i.e. licensing standards] on professionals in Missouri.” The bills would respectively recognize professional licenses issued in other states, and change minimum age requirements for some professions. Unfortunately, the first bill also contains a provision that forbids any private licensing entity from using the words “certification” or “registration,” a provision that excited the ire of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards (CFPB) and the Financial Services Institute. These groups pointed out that this provision could invalidate the credentials of many certified financial planners in Missouri. The Center for Association Leadership broadened the complaint, asserting that it would have a serious negative impact on a much larger range of professionals, including doctors, lawyers, etc.  Sloppy, sloppy.

— Rep. Grier co-sponsored HB 2540 which he claims “provided a tax cut to citizens and businesses.” It did cut taxes. For rich folks. Already I’m hearing complaints about ballot initiatives, etc. that would raise sales taxes that have already reached 10% or more. These taxes are being levied in order to pay for services that used to come out of general funds. And here’s Rep. Grier bragging about beggaring the state and forcing citizens to choose between regressive taxes or loss of vital services?

— Although he did not include it among his list of accomplishments but added it as an aside, Rep. Grier also takes credit for voting “to fully fund the education foundation formula.” That’s not much of a boast, though, given that the GOP-controlled legislature voted to change the formula to conform better to the amount of spending that they deigned to allocate to schools, rather than allocate the amount required by the earlier version of the formula.

I recently watched on Netflix an episode of the Australian TV series, Rake,  which presents the misadventures of a dissipated, renegade lawyer, Cleaver Greene. Greene asks at one point about an American politician, “So he’s a moderate Republican? He’s just a little bit pro-life, a little bit pro-gun, a little bit anti-gay?” What this series of rhetorical questions imply is that in the real world, when decisions have to be made, folks usually have to break one way or another, and I would suggest, based on his total voting record rather than campaign flim-flam, that Rep. Grier breaks to the not so moderate right whenever it really counts.

“…So this is really a question for Josh Hawley, what did he know, when did he know it?”

17 Wednesday Oct 2018

Posted by in Claire McCaskill, US Senate

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Josh Hawley (r) [2016 file photo].

Apparently the right wingnut Project Veritas and their founder James O’Keefe did their secret video thing using a person or persons embedded in Claire McCaskill’s (D) campaign. Josh Hawley (r) and his friends are all atwitter.

A release from Senator McCaskill’s campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Contact: Meira Bernstein and Eric Mee [….]

McCaskill for Missouri Campaign Manager David Kirby Calls on Attorney General Josh Hawley to Appoint Special Prosecutor to Investigate Crimes Committed by Project Veritas Against McCaskill Campaign

McCaskill for Missouri Campaign Manager David Kirby Calls on Attorney General Josh Hawley to Appoint Special Prosecutor to Investigate Crimes Committed by Project Veritas Against McCaskill Campaign

MISSOURI — Today, McCaskill for Missouri Campaign Manager David Kirby called on Josh Hawley to uphold his responsibility as Attorney General and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate crimes committed by Project Veritas against the McCaskill campaign.

“Josh Hawley’s responsibility as the Attorney General of Missouri is to protect Missourians from fraud. Rather than doing his job and investigating this very serious situation, Hawley has been embracing, celebrating and promoting this clear case of fraudulent activity designed to hurt his political opponent. It should not be lost on any Missourian that Hawley will stoop to anything – and stop at nothing – to climb the ladder to higher office. Therefore, today we are calling on Attorney General Hawley to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act committed against the McCaskill campaign,” said McCaskill for Missouri Campaign Manager David Kirby.

As Missouri’s Attorney General, Josh Hawley is obligated to protect Missourians from fraud. Instead of upholding his duty to Missourians, Hawley is openly embracing, promoting, and fundraising off of the illegal infiltration of his opponent’s Senate campaign. With Hawley’s campaign surrogates and supporters bragging publicly that they had advance copies of the video, and/or knowledge of the fraudulent activity, Hawley needs to answer for what exactly he knew about this illegal infiltration and when he knew it. This cannot become the new normal in Missouri politics, which is why the McCaskill for Missouri campaign is calling on Josh Hawley to exercise his jurisdiction under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act — a law he has frequently touted in the past — to investigate the crimes committed by Project Veritas against the McCaskill campaign.

###

Apparently the Project Veritas videos (no, we’re not linking to a right wingnut site) show that Claire McCaskill is a Democrat.

There’s still a lot details we don’t know.

This afternoon David Kirby, Claire McCaskill’s campaign manager, held a media conference call on the subject.

The transcript:

[….]

David Kirby (McCaskill campaign manager): …Thanks everybody for joining today, I recognize how busy you all are, three weeks to go before election day. Uh, but, but it’s important and appreciate your time and attention. Uh, you know, as Attorney General Josh Hawley is supposed to be protecting Missourians from fraud. You have all seen these recent videos released by Project Veritas and known provocateur James O’Keefe. We have reason to believe that fraud was committed against our campaign. And rather than calling it out, for the past forty-eight hours Josh Hawley has been actively embracing and celebrating these fraudulent videos. He’s been sending out fundraising e-mails about them, he’s been tweeting about them, he’s been encouraging his supporters to watch them and pass them around, he’s been encouraging Missouri voters to look at these.

But this call today is not about Project Veritas. This is about Josh Hawley and his failure to act. This cannot be the new normal in Missouri politics. We cannot have people perpetrating fraud, going into campaigns, obtaining videos under false pretenses in violation of law. Josh Hawley’s supposed to be protecting us from fraud as Attorney General and he’s not. I’m having this conversation today because Claire’s busy, she’s on the road. She’s in Cape Girardeau and then on to Jefferson County. She’s talking to Missourians about the rising cost of prescription drugs which she has fought to lower, she’s talking to voters about the importance of protecting health insurance coverage for those with preexisting conditions, she’s talking about the importance of fighting for our veterans and military families, and she’s also talking about the growing opioid epidemic and crisis that’s facing so many families here in Missouri.

Her track record on bipartisan issues is very clear, she’s worked with everyone, Republican, Democrats, Independents. But today I have to have this call. And today our campaign I calling on Attorney General Josh Hawley to look into this matter under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act which we have probable cause to believe was violated through these activities of Project Veritas. And we’re calling on Hawley to recuse himself, because he clearly is biased in this situation, and demanding that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate these matters and investigate these claims and charges.

We have retained counsel in this matter. You’ll be getting more information about that in the coming days. But again, it’s time for Josh Hawley to stand up, it’s time for him to stop hiding when it comes to his job, and it’s time for him to stop promoting this fraud.

With that I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

[….]

Question: …um, Senator McCaskill said previously that, uh, it’s startling that Josh Hawley would be part of fraudulently embedding somebody in my campaign. Do you guys have any evidence that Hawley was, uh, specific, Hawley or anyone in his campaign was involved in this Project Veritas, uh, situation?

David Kirby: Well clearly Josh Hawley is perpetrating this, this fraud by promoting it and encouraging it. You don’t have to look any further than look at some of his closest surrogates. Ed Martin, his supporter, who’s show he just went on yesterday, was aware of thee videos, he said this, Martin did, several weeks ago. And he’s featured prominently in the video. Furthermore, Greg Keller, well known Republican operative, paid for by many Republican outfits, who is a clear supporter of the Attorney General’s, also has indicated that he knew about these videos in advance. And he’s encouraging people. So this is really a question for Josh Hawley, what did he know, when did he know it?

[….]

Question: …when, when you say fraud has been perpetrated can you explain that? And what evidence do you have that it was specifically fraudulent, what happened?

David Kirby: Well, there’s no question that videos were captured under false pretenses and misrepresentation, which, under Missouri law, is fraud. We have also probable cause to believe that the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act was violated. And I can cite for you the specific cites. The act clearly applies to this situation. In Missouri it is unlawful to use deception, fraud, misrepresentation in connection with solicitation of any funds for any charitable purpose. And that is Missouri Revised Statutes 407.020. Project Veritas is a purported 501(c)(3).

[….]

Question: …sort of a two pronged question here. Um, you issued two statements last night. The second of which seemed to back off on this, uh, claim that, uh, that Hawley was involved. Was that purposeful and why did you do that? And secondly, aren’t you by implicating, um, Hawley in this thing asking Hawley to investigate himself?

David Kirby: Well I think I was pretty clear with the earlier question. Josh Hawley has openly been encouraging this, promoting this, fundraising off of this in the last forty-eight hours. Um, and his close friends and surrogates, that include Ed Martin and Greg Keller, have all publicly said that they had advance copies of these videos and also have been promoting it.

Question: But that doesn’t answer my [crosstalk] question.

David Kirby: What was your second question?

Question: Well, that doesn’t answer my question. The, my question was, you issued one statement that seemed to in, implicate Hawley, the you, then within hours you issued a second statement that seemed to back off from that. So it looks like you did your due diligence as a campaign and you decided, I can give you the exact language. Um, your first language was, starting, it is startling that Josh Hawley would be part of fraudulently embedding somebody in my campaign. Your second statement aid, it is startling that Josh Hawley would embrace fraudulently embedding somebody in my campaign, implying that you did some due diligence and you decided as a campaign that maybe you couldn’t prove the first point.

David Kirby: No, you know, you know, on advice of legal counsel we’re not going to get into specifics of what we know, um, with respect [inaudible] the facts of these individuals involved. Uh, the reality is that’s a question for Josh, I mean, it’s a question for Josh Hawley. What did he know, when did he know it?

Question: The second part…

David Kirby: Your second question?

Question: …was, are you asking him to investigate himself? If he’s implicated, if he had something to do with it, uh, isn’t that an inherent conflict of interest?

David Kirby: No, I think I was very clear in my statement that we’re calling on the Attorney General to recuse himself, but that the Attorney General’s office has the authority to investigate violations of the Merchandising Practices Act. I know that he loves to talk about that issue when it comes to various topics. Um, and he needs to recuse himself personally, but appoint a special Attorney General as he has the authority and jurisdiction to do in this situation.

[….]

Question: …Do you know who it was who was, um, embedded into the campaign and, two, since most of the, a lot of this, uh, video about Planned Parenthood seems to have been filmed in the Columbia field office, um, have any of the staffers who were working out of that office been disciplined for any of the statements they made in the video?

David Kirby: On your first question on who the individual or individuals involved in this incident, on the advice of legal counsel we’re not going to get into specific fact at this moment on those, um, those folks that perpetrated this. Um, suffice to say, as I’ve indicated, you’ll be getting updated information shortly on that. Um, and we will be taking, uh, legal action.

On the second question, could you repeat the second part of the question?

Question: Yeah, I was interested if you’ve take, if any of the staffers have been disciplined for statements because if you look at the statements that say that Planned Parenthood is not supporting Claire, well then, McCaskill, then you look at her campaign finance reports you’ll find that five thousand dollars has been contributed by the Planned Parenthood national political organization. And so they were not only, not only were their statements wrong, but they, you know, maybe out of, a little bit out of, uh, you know, a little bit too loose in what they were saying. So I wonder if there’s been any disciplinary action taken against them.

David Kirby: …yeah, clearly their statements were wrong. And they don’t know what they’re talking about. You know, and they’re, they’re twenty-five, year old kids and they’re having a conversation behind closed doors. And they don’t speak for the campaign. And the facts are very clear. Yes, we have taken money from Planned Parenthood. Yes, that money’s been disclosed by law, by FEC regulation – that we haven’t his from it. So, you know, I’m not going to comment on what a twenty-five year old kid says behind closed doors when they’re not authorized to talk for the campaign.

[….]

Question: … When you look at that video it looks as if, uh, James O’Keefe is talking to, uh, some of the staffers. When, to the best of your knowledge, did this happen?

David Kirby: … Um, yeah, so again, we have, we have information on, on when this happened, but it’s, on the advice of counsel I’m not going to get into specific timing. Um, but it’s, it’s fair to say, and you’ll know more once we, um, you know, pursue our legal action. Um, it’s fair to say that this happened, um, a number of times as the video indicates.

[….]

Question: …You have mentioned, you know, having retained an attorney and, uh, having advice from counsel. Are you planning any sort of individual legal action against Project Veritas or Mr. O’Keefe, or are you focused solely on a potential investigation by the Attorney General’s office?

David Kirby: …Yeah, great question. Uh, I think that we, we’re pursuing, uh, various options that include, um, you know, demanding the Attorney General and his office do their job and enforce the state law. And there are also other violations that we believe occurred that are outside the purview of the Attorney General’s office that we may pursue based on our legal, um, legal analysis and legal guidance.

Question: This is a very narrow legalistic question, and I understand that you may not answer for this, but Missouri is a one party consent state when it comes to videotaping people. Could that complicate any legal pursuits that you have, or do you feel that the violations of the Missouri, uh, Merchandising Act supersede anything involving taping somebody without their permission.

David Kirby: You know, I would just, you know, Attorney General Josh Hawley has used the Merchandising Practices Act in a very broad way as you all well know, um, over the past year and a half. We are very confident that there is a cause of action here under that statute. And I think the Attorney General would agree if you asked him.

Question: … It obviously appeared that someone embedded in the campaign, either as an intern or a volunteer. Can you just walk us through what your normal process is when someone approaches the campaign when they want to work on it, how much vetting you do, obviously low level staffers I wouldn’t assume that you’re doing full background checks on them? But what is your normal process for when someone approaches the campaign, which obviously was probably exploited in, in this case by the, by Project Veritas.

David Kirby: Yeah, I mean, I’m not going to get into specifics on our office polices and personnel policies. Suffice to say that we do do due diligence and, um, that includes full time staff, interns, and volunteers.

[….]

…I just want to reiterate that this is not about Project Veritas. This is about the Attorney General’s failure, his failure to stand up and, you know, call out fraudulent activity. And it’s a failure, really, of, of politics, the dialogue that this campaign is getting into, um, that he’s perpetrated, this gutter politics. We just can’t have this be the new normal. Claire McCaskill’s never fought dirty. She’s not going to do it. She’s out there talking about the issues. We want the Attorney General to talk about the issues and focus on that and not fraudulent videos that are captured…

We will be pursuing legal remedies and you’ll get more information on that shortly.

[….]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [2018 file photo].

Stephen Webber, Chair of the Missouri Democratic Party – GOTV – Warrensburg, Missouri – October 15, 2018

16 Tuesday Oct 2018

Posted by in Resist

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Last night Missouri Democratic Party Chair Stephen Webber stopped by a GOTV training session at the Coordinated Campaign field office in Warrensburg to speake to volunteers about the process leading up to the election in three weeks. The Warrensburg office is one of forty across the state. Offices are staffed by a field organizer and volunteers – a lot of volunteers who call from phone banks and go door to door contacting voters.

Stephen Webber, Chair of the Missouri Democratic Party – Warrensburg, Missouri – October 15, 2018.

The three most important things in a campaign are field, field, and field.

Have a plan. Have your ID ready. Study the very long ballot. Vote on November 6th.

#resist

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) – Odessa, Missouri – October 15, 2018

15 Monday Oct 2018

Posted by in Claire McCaskill, US Senate

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

This afternoon in Odessa, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill (D) stopped at T & T’s Good Farm Cooking for a campaign town hall event. About fifty supporters packed in to listen to Senator McCaskill speak in a side dining area. Senator McCaskill then took questions, and when done remained to greet and listen to any individuals who had additional questions or wanted photos. Before departing the diner Senator McCaskill purchased a few pies for her staff to share on the campaign RV.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) in Odessa, Missouri – October 15, 2018

Watching from the main dining room.

A Navy veteran speaks.

“…I’m a United States Navy, retired. And let me say this, if it wasn’t for Claire McCaskill and the late [Representative] Ike Skelton veterans would not be in the position that we’re in today. Because of those two individuals, this I know for a fact, I thank God that they stood up for veterans and the insurance and the benefits that we have. And I appreciate very much, and the sad part, we’ll never have another Ike Skelton, and that’s very sad, but we have Claire McCaskill [applause]…”

Listening to a constituent.

Before leaving the diner Senator McCaskill also took questions from a reporter for the local paper:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): [….] …But we don’t want to go back to the bad old days where the insurance companies can just yank us around. [“Right.”] And over charge and refuse to insure. So, that’s really where we are right now. We need to hold on to the good parts and fix some of the problems that we still have.

Question: So as you’re looking at what to fix does some of that include some of the parts that weren’t put in, that didn’t get implemented or didn’t get [crosstalk][inaudible]

Senator McCaskill: Well, the parts we want to fix are the parts that are making the individual market so expensive. Which is, how do we get more people, more healthy young people in the pool. And a lot of that is figuring out a way to bring down those costs. Because if you’re a young person you want health insurance, too. But you’re not going to pay an arm and a leg for it ’cause you think, well, I’m healthy, I don’t really need it. So, you’ve got to figure out a way that you can attract those young healthy people in to the pool ’cause that brings down the cost for everybody. And that’s really what the provisions are that I support, and frankly, a lot of Republicans support, if [Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell [r] would just let us vote on it. The bill is written and it’s got good stuff in it, but Mitch McConnell, I, I don’t know why, I think because promised repeal and replace, he’s too afraid to fix. Does that make sense? [“Yes.”] They promised to repeal and replace, they didn’t have a replace [“Um, hm.”], so know they’re just hoping everybody will, will not notice.

Question: Okay. Um, this event has been really focused on health care, which I totally understand. What are some of the other thing that you think voters out here should be most thinking about?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I think workers’ rights. I mean, Missourians spoke with a really loud voice against Prop A, um, in August. This county was no different than most Missouri counties. The margin was very large against Prop A. Josh Hawley [r] supports Prop A. He thinks that the bosses should be able to drive wages down even further. Um, minimum wage. We have a very reasonable proposal to raise minimum wage, on the ballot in November. I’m for it, Josh Hawley’s against it. So, there really is another really big contrast on workers’ rights [“Um, hm.”] and that’s where I think he’s really out of step with Missourians, not just on the health care stuff, but that. And finally, that he supports the idea that there should be anonymous dark money allowed in politics. I oppose it. He, um, and he likes to come back and say, well, you’ve got dark money helping you. Here’s what I’ve said over and over again, if you can’t figure out who paid for the ad, I don’t care if it’s for me or against me, you should ignore it.

Question: All right. Um, he’s spoken a lot about middle class values. You want to say a little bit about what your value come from?

Senator McCaskill: Well, you know, I worked my way through school as a waitress. Um, my family moved around a fair bit when I was a child, and because of the need for my dad to find a better job to support his family. Um, I was a single mom with three kids when I met my husband, who had had great success in business. The Republicans love successful businessmen when they run for president. They don’t like them so much when they’re married to a Democratic senator. [reporter laughter] So, um, I’ve done fifty-two town halls in the last year in Missouri, all over the state, listening, a lot of places where I’m not very popular. I don’t think Josh Hawley’s ever had a town hall. So, I really am confident that I am in better touch with Missouri than he is. If you’re not willing to stand in a room in front of people that you work for and let them ask you any question they want to ask, then I don’t know that you have a right to be in elective office.

Question: All right. [“Okay.”] Anything else that you think people out here need to know about you or the race?

Senator McCaskill: …I think that everybody should check fact checks. [reporter laughter] I mean, there are absolutely blatant lies being told about me, my family, my votes. They should check, you know, check for themselves with these independent fact checkers. They’re going to be astonished how many of the ads are being run for Josh Hawley have been deemed false by independent fact checkers [“Um, hm.”].

[….]

A trio of republican operatives, two in costumes, waited outside to harass Senator McCaskill as she left the diner to board their campaign RV. As they were waiting I asked one of the costumed operatives standing near me, “You get paid for this?” He said nothing in response, but reached for his smart phone to start recording.