McCain Camp responds:"Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae.."

[sabra]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/09/report-freddie.html

<snip>

Update at 8:30 a.m. ET, Sept. 24. More from the McCain campaign.

At its website, McCain's campaign has posted a long response to the Times story. Here's an excerpt:

Today The New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.


It should be noted that while the McCain response says that the Times reported "Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac," in fact the Times wrote that the money was paid "to a firm owned by Senator John McCain's campaign manager." That may or may not be an important distinction, but is what the Times said.

[babylonsister]

1. Their excuses are falling on my deaf ears. After all the lying they've

done, why should I believe the boys who cry wolf now?

[Bread and Circus]

2. Yeah, but does Rick Davis still have an ownership interest in the firm?

[Barack_America]

3. Then where's my $15,000 a month?

I've "never --never-- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac" either. Why am I not being paid?

:shrug:

[blondeatlast]

8. Funny how that works, isn't it? I want mine as well! nt

[emulatorloo]

4. Politico points out that this is a non-denial "denial".

I'll dig up a link in a minute.

September 24, 2008
Categories: John McCain

McCain camp attacks Times, doesn't deny report
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/McCain_camp_attacks_Times_doesnt_deny_report.html

The Mccain camp has a 698-word statement out in response to today's story that Rick Davis's firm, Davis Manafort, was paid a consulting fee of $15,000 a month starting in 2005, and ending last month.

<SNIP>

What the statement doesn't dispute is the actual news in the story: the $15,000 monthly payments from Freddie Mac, which began while Davis was still running the firm. You can judge the news value of that for yourself.

So don't mistake the extended non-denial for an argument about the substance of the story. At this point in the race, details like that may be less important than broader electoral positioning, and the campaign seeks to escalate this into an argument with the Times, rather than a conversation about Davis's ties. The question is whether the conservative base -- which hotly contested negative stories about Sarah Palin -- will defend Davis, not a particular conservative hero, with the same vigor.

[Botany]

5. Do not put bull shit on toast and tell me it is Country Style Apple Butter

Davis is in it up to his eyeballs

[babylonsister]

10. Oh, my.

:rofl: Not just any ole apple butter, but country style! :D

[blondeatlast]

6. As KKKarl rove said: "When you are defending, you are losing." Game over, John Sidney McBush III. nt

[Marsala]

7. Hopefully this story will have legs

The non-denial denial didn't contradict the central parts of the story - that Davis's firm continued to receive payments due to Davis's relationship with McCain and that Davis has an equity stake in the firm which ties the profit to him, however indirectly. The ridiculous attacks on the New York Times only make the campaign look more desperate.

[blondeatlast]

9. Remember, Davis has been a prominent McCain surrogate on teevee talkers.

I've seen him on Hardball, the old Dan Abrams show, and Morning Joe at least.

He's a charmless man and was very hostile. His most famous line... "Issues don't matter."

How conveeenient...

[Maine-i-acs]

11. Technically true? He ran a lobbying firm, but did not directly lobby himself.

That slight distinction, however, makes him and McCain no less of a corporate-neocon tool.

This parsing of words as a defense is completely asinine, and anyone with two functioning ganglia can see right through it.

[theothersnippywshrub]

12. Have there been any changes to Davis' capital account in the partnership?

I note that the campaign statement omits any mention of that.

I also not that the statement contains a demonstrable and easily disproved lie in the very first paragraph.

Does McCain even know the difference any longer between the truth and a lie?

[Median Democrat]

13. So, the Payments Were Bribes?

Afterall, what was Davis being paid for then?

[Marsala]

15. But Davis wasn't being paid after 2005!

His firm was! For... something. NOT for lobbying because Davis wasn't a lobbyist! Also, he was financially separated so he didn't see a dime (except through his equity stake, of course).

Anyway it's all LIES by the EVIL BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA led by the New York Times! They're in the tank for Obama! Everyone's in the tank for Obama! Even Davis is in the tank for Obama; why else would he humiliate McCain like this at such a critical moment?

[vaberella]

14. I guess he's living on the defense. It's too late McCain; moving on. n/t

[blondeatlast]

16. Davis has a very public persona on tv talkers; now you can put the name to the face:

[CitizenPatriot]

17. what does it mean to be a lobbyist?

there are thousands of "unregistered" lobbyists in Washington...in fact, Alaska is not without its share of unregistered lobbyists, such as Todd Palin, who gets paid by a foreign oil company to do NO work, because he has "access" to Gov Palin.

To unregister oneself as a lobbyist is an old trick right before campaigning. NPR did a big story on this and they explained that many of the of the top lobbyists are not registered. They are not taking money themselves....directly, that is.

Yes, he still owns the shares of that company and that was the point of the NYT article from my understanding.

It simply doesn't work like you unregister and suddenly you're not working for them anymore. That's like saying you don't look after the hand that has fed you for years. Why were they paying such huge fees if they didn't think the person would be lobbying for them? They paid Rick Davis 30 k a month and then 15 k a month because he had access to McCain, whom they knew was running for Pres in 08.

There's no way out of that one.

Except phony outrage and the shite filled email I just got from a Pub, full of lies about Obama's positions.

They are bringing out the garbage now in a desperate attempt to distract the voters. As I referred to it in my reply all email, "this is no time to be distracted by petty lies. Inform yourselves using factcheck and snopes so that you are an informed voter, voting your conscience, instead of a misinformed voter voting on lies."