newsobserver.com projects - Jimmy Broughton - Comments

Re: Former rivals plan D.C. ball

ryanteaguebeckwith — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:21:37 -0500

One step ahead of you. I called, but they're out of the office this week.

— RTB

Re: Former rivals plan D.C. ball

GrayJ — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:58:42 -0500

Thanks, I took high school civics. I understand different party agendas and mindsets. However, as far as different constituencies, you are correct. However, how often do issues in North Carolina simply fall into only one of our absurdly drawn 13 congressional districts.

But on to a more practically compliant, I guess I am just confused as to what the DC office actually does for the taxpayers of North Carolina. Since the Dome recently moved to DC (isn't that correct) maybe you could swing by the office and tell us what they are working on or what they have done in the past . But if they are like the rest of the Easley Administration, good luck getting anywhere.

Re: Former rivals plan D.C. ball

ryanteaguebeckwith — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:18:47 -0500

Well, only two of them have the same constituency as the governor, and even at that, they're not necessarily of the same party, political mindset or agenda.

— RTB

Re: Former rivals plan D.C. ball

GrayJ — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:01:53 -0500

I guess you learn something everyday. But I thought we had 15 elected officials and their staffs looking out for North Carolina's interests already in the nation's capital.

Re: Former rivals plan D.C. ball

bellaparola — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:07:04 -0500

And so do most states.

Re: Former rivals plan D.C. ball

ryanteaguebeckwith — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:13:29 -0500

Seems so. Gov. Mike Easley has an office in D.C. right now as well.

— RTB

Re: Former rivals plan D.C. ball

GrayJ — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:04:18 -0500

Hunt had a office in Washington? Is it normal for the North Carolina Governor to have a office in the nation's capital?

Target markets

scharrison — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:38:30 -0400

As long as nobody in the General Assembly tries to legislate against Blackwater, I don't think we'll see much (lobbying) money spent there. Whatever markets they do have (or aspire to) in North Carolina, such as training local law enforcement, I'm pretty sure there's no State laws "impeding" them. The real market is up in D.C.

I'd be interested to know how much revenue North Carolina receives from Blackwater's billion-plus State Department contracts and all the others. Since they don't pay taxes on all their "subcontractors" (employees), I have a hunch they're not as much of a "boost" to the state's economy as other businesses of the same size.

Re: The N.C. Military Foundation's consultants

ryanteaguebeckwith — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:23:00 -0400

You guys sure are interested in this stuff.

Their state lobbying expenses are here and federal lobbying expenses are here.

— RTB

Re: The N.C. Military Foundation's consultants

Cdickson — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:41:43 -0400

What did these people do and how much were they paid?

Got it.

Anglico — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:44:11 -0500

Thanks. I do see your point, and it's one I have some misgivings about. I've known attorneys at WCSR, they're good people. And I also suspect there is at least some consternation about this new client.

That said, I've seen Blackwater literally get away with murder (in my opinion) and operate with impunity at huge costs to our nation, both financial and moral. As someone dedicated to integrity in government, I don't feel I can stand by wringing my hands on this one. Especially given the North Carolina connections - and the toll mercenaries take on the safety of loyal soldiers, Marines and sailors.

WCSR is indeed representing Blackwater's legal interests, and from what I can tell, that's their story and they're sticking to it. Until those interests are no longer legal, WCSR has hit the jackpot. Indeed, WCSR has a financial stake in ensuring that Blackwater's business stays both legal and highly profitable.

And that's where I have a problem. The attorneys working to represent the interests of, say, the town of Cary, are also working to ensure that a band of mercenary war-profiteers remain in "good standing" with the government. WCSR may be one step removed from the business of killing, but it seems to me that they are at risk of becoming accessories. And since what they're all doing is legal, the only court to try them in is the court of public opinion.

I'm under no illusion about this. There's not a natural adversary to Blackwater like there was to the OLF in Washington County. People have enough problems without getting stirred up over the business dealings of a billionaire sociopath and his legal counsel.

But a guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do.

To my knowledge.

Representation

Isaac136 — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:48:05 -0500

Whether the court is one of an actual judge or jury or whether it is the court of public opinion, yes, the entity is entitled to representation, and it is certainly entitled to pursue its business interests. To vilify the law firm representing its interests is within your rights, but I personally don't think I'd target my opposition toward the law firm or otherwise attempt to suggest that it or its members are somehow morally compromised for taking on the client.

In other words, I'd rather go after the action that I object to on the part of Blackwater than go against someone who disagrees with me about that action. I don't like what Blackwater does, but I like even less the idea that its lawyers are to be denounced for representing Blackwater's lawful interests -- and pursuit of business is a lawful interest.

It does cut too close to the idea that a criminal lawyer has dirtied his hands by representing someone accused of a crime. In both cases the idea is about persuading a person or persons to give attention to a perspective that might not be popular. To say that such an advocate is evil for performing that role is like saying it is not permissible for anyone to have a different perspective. All of this assumes, of course, that we're discussing lawful -- albeit unpopular -- activity.

Sorry. Please explain.

Anglico — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:20:27 -0500

I'm very interested in what you're saying, but apparently I misunderstood your original comment. I thought you were making the case that everyone should have the right to representation, no matter how odious their behavior.

I was agreeing, but adding that this agreement between Prince and Blackwater doesn't appear to be about "representation" in the sense of litigation. This is about lobbying the government for contracts.

Can you give it one more try? Please?

peanuts

Isaac136 — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:07:54 -0500

That wasn't my point, but I don't think you're all that interested in anyone else's point, so never mind.

Apples and rotten apples

Anglico — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:57:41 -0500

I get your point, and you're right. I should have drawn a clearer distinction between lawyering to keep Prince out of jail (criminal law) and lawyering to help him ~~rip off American taxpayers~~ land government contracts.