Any undecided voters out there....

09/14/2004 01:35:33 PM · #26

Originally posted by RonB:

Can't resist the opportunity to somehow tie Bush to the Saudi Royal Family, can you? No matter the context. Just HOW does the Saudi Royal Family's business relate to the issue of the electoral college?

You may be limiting yourself to a narrow subject, I'm talking about politics, that is: the mechanics of the electoral process, news media, the candidates, conflict of interests, the candidates' associates, the people's interests -- you know, politics.

Message edited by author 2004-09-14 13:36:08.

09/14/2004 02:12:39 PM · #27

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
Can't resist the opportunity to somehow tie Bush to the Saudi Royal Family, can you? No matter the context. Just HOW does the Saudi Royal Family's business relate to the issue of the electoral college?

You may be limiting yourself to a narrow subject, I'm talking about politics, that is: the mechanics of the electoral process, news media, the candidates, conflict of interests, the candidates' associates, the people's interests -- you know, politics.

Oh. Well in that case, I guess that All's Fair. Smear away.

09/14/2004 02:26:16 PM · #28

Ron,

My response to you, see below, is factual; however, it seems that you, too, object to Mr. Baker's apparent "conflict of interests," and to Mr. Bush's decision to retain Mr. Baker's services.

.......................................

QUOTE

Originally posted by RonB:

1) The reports were isolated because only isolated rags would print such tabloid trash.
2) You state as though it were fact that

"Mr. Bush and his campaign had decided that if Mr. Gore won the electoral college vote, but not the popular vote, that Mr. Bush would contest the election on popular grounds",

yet you have no factual basis for making that statement.

From your tone, and many other statements elsewhere on this board, it's clear that you're not going to be persuaded otherwise. Now, news items reporting that Mr. Bush would've challenged the electoral college, if the 2000 results had been reversed, are "scattered and hard to find;" because, one, the news items are four years old, and, two, Mr. Bush's decision to challenge the electoral college did not receive much coverage to begin with. Again, let's remember that when such reports would've bubbled up in the media's news cycle, towards the closing days of the campaign, reporters had more pressing news items to cover. Again, let's remember, that at the time, there were far more topical news items receiving attention before the election, (i.e., the dash to the finish line by the candidates); and, after the election, well, there were far more visible news items that overshadowed everything else (i.e., the Florida debacle).

Nonetheless, those that follow politics and elections closely remember such reports -- I know I do. Here's an off the cuff remark made by one of the panelist in PBS's The News Hour:

The Bush folks were all prepared according to my conservative sources to challenge legally if George Bush did win the popular vote and Al Gore won the electoral vote. They had done the research; they had the attorneys; and I assume they'll now turn that over to the Gore people just to expedite the matter. [ Transcript ]

The 2000 Bush team of attorneys referred to above were led James Baker III, a member of the Carlyle Group, whose law firm (Baker Botts) is representing the Saudi Royal Family against the 9-11 families, and, is the same James Baker III, that is currently leading Mr. Bush's presidential debate team.

I know that the 2000 election is in the past and, as Russell2566 so eloquently put it, we should just move on and focus on the up-coming election -- which is what I'm focused on. However, I posted the original news item because of Russell2566's indignant tone regarding Mr. Gore's Florida election challenge.

UN-QUOTE

09/14/2004 02:45:44 PM · #29

Originally posted by bdobe:

Ron,

My response to you, see below, is factual; however, it seems that you, too, object to Mr. Baker's apparent "conflict of interests," and to Mr. Bush's decision to retain Mr. Baker's services.

???
If I did I wouldn't have said "Smear away".

Unless they violate their license to practice law, lawyers are free to accept ANY case without being guilty of a conflict of interest. But if mere perception of a potential conflict of interest counts, then perhaps we should be putting a great deal more pressure on Joe Sandler and Robert Bauer to resign from the DNC and the Kerry Campaign ( or MoveOn.org and ACT, respectively ). After all, it's against the law for coordination to occur between the two groups they each represent.

For the record, I do not oppose either of them serving two committees that are forbidden to coordinate activities.

Message edited by author 2004-09-14 14:47:10.

09/14/2004 03:14:33 PM · #30

Originally posted by RonB:

Unless they violate their license to practice law, lawyers are free to accept ANY case without being guilty of a conflict of interest.

That may be, technically, lawyers can represent whom they like. However, as a citizen, Mr. Baker's apparent "conflict of interests," in representing Mr. Bush, while his name-sake law firm defends the Sauidi Royal family against the 9-11 familes, concerns me and reminds me of General Eisenhower's (Republican president, 1953-1961) warning to the nation in his farewell speech:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." [ Text of Farewell Speech ]

It seems to me that far too many of us, Americans all, have neglected our solemn duty to remain vigilant against the danger that General Eisenhower warned us about.

There are some things that do transcend partisanship.

09/14/2004 03:35:28 PM · #31

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
Unless they violate their license to practice law, lawyers are free to accept ANY case without being guilty of a conflict of interest.

That may be, technically, lawyers can represent whom they like. However, as a citizen, Mr. Baker's apparent "conflict of interests," in representing Mr. Bush, while his name-sake law firm defends the Sauidi Royal family against the 9-11 familes, concerns me and reminds me of General Eisenhower's (Republican president, 1953-1961) warning to the nation in his farewell speech:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." [ Text of Farewell Speech ]

It seems to me that far too many of us, Americans all, have neglected our solemn duty to remain vigilant against the danger that General Eisenhower warned us about.

There are some things that do transcend partisanship.

First, I agree with Eisenhower and with you - a worthy challenge from him, and a worthy rebuke from you. ( And, FWIW, I remember Eisenhower quite well - his run against Adele Stevenson was the first presidential campaign I actually took an interest in - and I knew nothing of partisan politics at the time, I just knew that I liked Ike from his demeanor ).

That being said - I don't quite see the conflict of interest that you apparently see in Baker's representing Bush on the one hand, and his law firm's representing the Saudi Royal Family ( against the 9/11 families ) on the other. What is the conflict that you see?

09/14/2004 04:43:48 PM · #32

Originally posted by RonB:

I don't quite see the conflict of interest that you apparently see in Baker's representing Bush on the one hand, and his law firm's representing the Saudi Royal Family ( against the 9/11 families ) on the other. What is the conflict that you see?

Ron,

I know your question is sincere, and I'll respond in kind:

Though, technically Mr. Baker's law-firm can represent whom they like, there's a principle at stake. On principle, I believe that the man whom advices and represents the president, should not simultaneously represent a client with apparent ties to one of the worst terrorists attacks against our nation. Note that when one speaks of Saudi Arabia in any fashion, one is in fact speaking of the Saudi Royal family; because, as an institution, the royal family exerts total control over the kingdom.

At the moment, there are some reports linking Saudi Intelligence Agencies and the Al Queda cells that attacked us on 9-11. I've only performed a very cursory search to document and support what I've written here; however, for anyone that's interested, I would urge you to do same. Moreover, like many of you I'm sure, I'll be reading the 911 Commission Report, where much of this is documented.

Again, for me the problem with Mr. Baker's law firm representing the Saudi Family and Mr. Bush at the same time, is one of an apparent conflict of interests; and, too, the fact that this situation is the very thing that General Eisenhower warned us we should be vigilant against: The confluence of, 1. BIG TIME money (Mr. Baker's firm is defending the Saudi Family in a 1 TRILLION DOLLAR suit), 2. Politics (Mr. Baker's firm is representing and advising our nation's leading political office holder), and 3. The industries that gain from the nation's war-enterprise (Mr. Baker is a sitting member of the Carlyle Group).

To me, these are sufficient reasons for Mr. Baker to, at the very least, recuse himself from advising and representing Mr. Bush.

.......................................

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
Unless they violate their license to practice law, lawyers are free to accept ANY case without being guilty of a conflict of interest.

That may be, technically, lawyers can represent whom they like. However, as a citizen, Mr. Baker's apparent "conflict of interests," in representing Mr. Bush, while his name-sake law firm defends the Sauidi Royal family against the 9-11 familes, concerns me and reminds me of General Eisenhower's (Republican president, 1953-1961) warning to the nation in his farewell speech:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." [ Text of Farewell Speech ]

It seems to me that far too many of us, Americans all, have neglected our solemn duty to remain vigilant against the danger that General Eisenhower warned us about.

There are some things that do transcend partisanship.

First, I agree with Eisenhower and with you - a worthy challenge from him, and a worthy rebuke from you. ( And, FWIW, I remember Eisenhower quite well - his run against Adele Stevenson was the first presidential campaign I actually took an interest in - and I knew nothing of partisan politics at the time, I just knew that I liked Ike from his demeanor ).

That being said - I don't quite see the conflict of interest that you apparently see in Baker's representing Bush on the one hand, and his law firm's representing the Saudi Royal Family ( against the 9/11 families ) on the other. What is the conflict that you see?

09/14/2004 05:54:18 PM · #33

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
I don't quite see the conflict of interest that you apparently see in Baker's representing Bush on the one hand, and his law firm's representing the Saudi Royal Family ( against the 9/11 families ) on the other. What is the conflict that you see?

Ron,

I know your question is sincere, and I'll respond in kind:

Yes, it was a serious question.

Originally posted by bdobe:

Though, technically Mr. Baker's law-firm can represent whom they like, there's a principle at stake. On principle, I believe that the man whom advices and represents the president, should not simultaneously represent a client with apparent ties to one of the worst terrorists attacks against our nation. Note that when one speaks of Saudi Arabia in any fashion, one is in fact speaking of the Saudi Royal family; because, as an institution, the royal family exerts total control over the kingdom.

At the moment, there are some reports linking Saudi Intelligence Agencies and the Al Queda cells that attacked us on 9-11. I've only performed a very cursory search to document and support what I've written here; however, for anyone that's interested, I would urge you to do same. Moreover, like many of you I'm sure, I'll be reading the 911 Commission Report, where much of this is documented.

Again, for me the problem with Mr. Baker's law firm representing the Saudi Family and Mr. Bush at the same time, is one of an apparent conflict of interests; and, too, the fact that this situation is the very thing that General Eisenhower warned us we should be vigilant against: The confluence of, 1. BIG TIME money (Mr. Baker's firm is defending the Saudi Family in a 1 TRILLION DOLLAR suit), 2. Politics (Mr. Baker's firm is representing and advising our nation's leading political office holder), and 3. The industries that gain from the nation's war-enterprise (Mr. Baker is a sitting member of the Carlyle Group).

To me, these are sufficient reasons for Mr. Baker to, at the very least, recuse himself from advising and representing Mr. Bush.

I still don't see the conflict of interest between advising Bush and advising the Saudi Royal Family. I can see why you MIGHT have a problem with Baker advising Bush and being on the Carlyle team, though I believe that you are really stretching to suggest that he benefits financially from those dual relationships. If you have something substantive, I'd be willing to consider it.

On the other hand, when speaking of conflicts of interest, you should know ( if you don't already ) that Joe Rice, of Motley, Rice, LLC, the firm that is representing the 9/11 families in their suit against the Saudi Royal Family is the same Joe Rice who represented the plaintiffs in their very successful class action asbestos lawsuit against Combustion Engineering. The resolution of that case was an offer by ABB ( Combustion's parent company ) to settle the case by setting up a substantial settlement fund and contingent upon obtaining the agreement of all plaintiffs to accept that offer. In order to obtain that agreement, ABB offered 20 million dollars in legal fees to whoever could broker that settlement.

Guess who brokered the deal - none other than Joe Rice.

That's right. He represented the plaintiffs in their class action suit - AND he represented ABB in their settlement offer to those very same plaintiffs.

And the ABA's response?

George Kuhlman, ethics counsel for the American Bar Association, said the group did not have absolute rules that bar lawyers from being paid by both sides in a case. "We have very complex rules on lawyers and conflicts of interest," Mr. Kuhlman said. "There are things that you are supposed to avoid, but it does not boil down to that you are supposed to avoid a fee from someone you are otherwise suing."

Why I'd bet that if the Saudi Royal Family offered a similar settlement, Ron Motley would jump at the chance to represent them even while representing the 9/11 families. And both parties would probably benefit because of his expert knowledge of the case.

Would you have a problem with that as a "conflict of interest"?