Will we can put a great spin on this, but it isn't very ambiguous..

[Truman01]

This statement from the KO blog was "written in an email from the lead attorney on the ground." Statement and link below. As an attorney I can tell you a couple things, and answer a couple questions I have seen since coming back from Christmas break.

The "lead attorney on the ground" would not necessarily be the lead trial attorney. Not all attorneys specialize in litigation. This attorney would be more the person who coordinates all activities.

But let me make this statement boldly and without reservation, NO attorney in his right mind would get on a national news program and represent himself or allow someone else to represent him as the "lead attorney on the ground" for a Presidential Candidate if he was not indeed the "lead attorney on the ground." This isn't something that is left up to speculation. The lead attorney is a position that is EXPLICIT.

Secondly, having identified himself as a "lead attorney" or having let someone identify him as the lead attorney, I can assure you that any statements he made, especially in writing, not off the cuff, and in "clarification" of other statements are statements that have been cleared directly by his client. This isn't something an attorney can take lightly. Attorneys rarely make strong declarative statements. When they do they damn well better be right.

My read of this situation is that this attorney tried to make a strong statement the first time, was called down for the reaction and made a very calculated and clear statement in clarification. So if we read this statement we see where Kerry stands in this whole matter.

Quoting from KO: (Emphasis and comments Added)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240

"I would caution the media not to read more into what the Kerry-Edwards campaign has said," Mr. Hoffheimer advised us by e-mail, i.e. thought out and in writing "than what you hear in the plain meaning of our comments. There are many conspiracy theorists opining these days. There are many allegations of fraud. But this presidential election is over. The Bush-Cheney ticket has won. The Kerry-Edwards campaign has found no conspiracy and no fraud in Ohio, though there have been many irregularities that cry out to be fixed for future elections. Senator Kerry and we in Ohio intend to fix them. When all of the problems in Ohio are added together, however bad they are,they do not add up to a victory for Kerry-Edwards. Senator Kerry's fully-informed and extremely careful assessment the day after the election and before he conceded remains accurate today, notwithstanding all the details we have since learned."


This is a very clear, hard hitting, VETTED statement by the lead attorney on the ground. Kerry is not leading the resistance, he has run up the white flag. "But this presidential election is over. The Bush-Cheney ticket has won."

We on this board may believe in the fraud, but the candidate doesn't. That is quite clear. Please, I invite any attorney, or legal practitioner to comment on what I said about a lead attorney and how unambiguous that term is.


TC

[RaulVB]

1. Mr. Hoffheimer's role

He just might be the individual that "fully informed the candidate about his options the night of the election..."

What we read here is Hoffheimer's opinion in writing. I suspect he is modeling Kerry's position and that is, unfortunately, reflecting poorly in the teams investigating the crime that we know took place on November 2nd.

I wouldn't try to guess what is on Kerry's mind since he IS NOT SPEAKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

[Truman01]

13. Kerry is speaking about the issue....

Attorney's are "mouthpieces" that is their PRIMARY roll. As I said in the post, NO ONE would DARE represent themselves or allow themselves to be represented as the "official attorney on the ground" if they were not so. If they are so, then they are the OFFICIAL mouthpiece of the candidate and they therefore speak for them.

TC

[RaulVB]

18. Well then, I tell you this much:

If his "mouthpiece" is right and is speaking on Kerry's behalf, then that means that the senator is the BIGGEST IDIOT, INCOMPETENT FOOL EVER TO BE NAMED PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

That would be my "legal analysis" and I don't think so low of Senator Kerry, of course!

He is a trained lawyer and investigator that has shown during his career that "wishful thinking" is not one of his qualities.

Fraud has been documented enough for him to see it and he understands the situation. Period.

[Truman01]

19. If you were in Kerry's position and this attorney made this statement

what would you do? And if all you think about Kerry is true, why hasn't he done it? This isn't a hard question. You think this guy wrote an email without clearing it with Kerry?

TC

[RaulVB]

22. No.

I think Kerry is way too loyal to his teams and takes too long to put them aside when they fail him.

Example: both of his campaign managers.

I mean, Mary Beth Cahill was a disaster!

[Truman01]

24. But wouldn't you correct him? nt

[RaulVB]

28. Well,

Kerry was corrected and told to put Cahill out and he did not find it necessary at the time.

He also trusted the MSM...well, you know what I mean.

[IndyPriest]

40. Tru: think like a politician, not like a lawyer

Do you come to the same conclusions?

Do you think it expedient and good that a politician might know how to play with legal statements?

And if a politician knew how to do that, would that be a good thing in a case like this?

[Truman01]

42. I prefer politicians take a stand and stay there.

I don't mean anything about Kerry. I just like to know where they stand, and I expect them to be there when I come back.

TC

[saracat]

2. Another attorney who posts on this Board has advised me it is possible

this is spin, in an effort to deflect attention from the other side.What counts is what the motion says. I do agree and have been posting that I find it hard to believe that Hoffheimer wasn't "cleared" by the campaign. Will Pitt said anyone can now speak for Kerry and I disagreed. I think Hoffheimer speaks your the "legal team." and the team represents Kerry Edwards.

[dweller]

3. have the other attorney

who posts here on this board, look at this post please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x204971


get the most opinion you can , imo.
dp

[New Earth]

5. i honestly don't trust any of the people here who say they are lawyers

with the exception of Old Leftie Lawyer.

[RaulVB]

8. Neither do I...

To be honest, I talk with everybody but I don't buy "cheap goods" on the internet...

[Truman01]

16. Why is that Faye? You don't like what is said,

so you chose not to "accept" it? My legal analysis is just that. If you, or anyone here would like to dispute it or give other analysis, feel free.

TC

[New Earth]

26. maybe

why do you seem so offended?

[Truman01]

31. Becasue I'm one of those Attorney's that you snipe at....

I hate to tell you, but I don't need your acceptance to be who I am. What is your expertise? You seem to speak rather authoritatively often.

TC

[dweller]

29. then ask OLL to read the post

and work from there.

the more opinions, the better.

dp

[righteous1]

46. who cares..... alot of us do, and Trumans work has been superb

[Truman01]

14. What does the "motion" say? Does anyone have a link? Nt

[Doctor O]

4. Thanks for the clarification TC, but this doesn't stay

in line with the ability for most people in this forum to "read between the lines" and as one poster put it "act like Drama Queens" and try to translate every word. Even KO was looking for the "Secret Map" in the lawyer's statement. Must be he thought Kerry saw "National Treasure".

And in response to the poster who said this is "misdirection", this is not the time for any misdirection. Either Kerry believes that Bush won or he believes there is no systematic conspiracy, and he is doing the right thing by putting out this statement clearly and succinctly. He believes in the electoral process and Kerry is doing what he feels is right for the country.

For the poster who wants Kerry to speak, he spoke om Nov 3. Democratic leaders, The DNC and Kerry's campaign have said publicly that they did not feel there was systematic fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud, he has said it through Hoffheimer, his lead attorney who represents him and was authorized to make this statement.

We just did not listen to him.

[RaulVB]

6. Disclaimer:

You don't even represent yourself, IMO.

[New Earth]

7. We?

you sure did.

[euler]

10. Well said n/t

[New Earth]

11. of course

[GetTheRightVote]

9. I am getting a little confused, is this good or bad, not a lawyer ??

:kick:

[New Earth]

12. wtf i'm posting in the wrong thread

WHOOPS

[Truman01]

15. Well it is important for you to decide but I will say this...

the attorney, representing himself as Kerry's lead, said flatly that Kerry/Edwards lost and they saw no basis for fraud being the reason they lost.

TC

[crispini]

17. Sigh...

:kick:

[WilliamPitt]

20. Check your PM

[WilliamPitt]

30. Check now

[understandinglife]

21. gambetto (n/t)

[shraby]

25. That's why the other attorney

filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of Kerry/Edwards to investigate the machines..because there was no fraud.

[New Earth]

23. i have a question

why is this thread directed to Will?

[smartvoter]

32. Because Will is the one peddling the confusion/misrepresentation angle. nt

[Truman01]

43. Because of another thread he posted. nt

[Last Lemming]

27. Look at the obvious

Obviously there has been fraud
Obviously Kerry knows there has been fraud
Obviously he is stage managing a showdown
What's not obvious to me is
1) who's got what kind of evidence,
2) how strong the evidence is (somebody tap the White House phones and got the goods on election night?)
3) how it will be brought to the attention of those that matter

I think some of us are confused because we have never seen a politician actively discourage publicity--as Kerry is doing now--remember, though, Kerry was a prosecuter

I keep telling myself--cat-mouse-cat-mouse

And I am still dreaming of a fat man wired for sound

[Eloriel]

36. I don't think it's at ALL obvious that Kerry knows there was fraud OR

that he's stage managing anything but his own 2008 campaign.

Some of your people fixated on how Kerry absolutely must be doing amazing things behind the scenes and under the radar are simply delusional. It's driving me batty and I don't think I can take much more.

[IndyPriest]

39. Hey, Lemming: that's my take exactly!

More than this is really reading tea leaves, I think. But this outline seems to me to remain true, very powerful and very hopeful.

[WilliamPitt]

33. More food for thought

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x205705

[procinderella]

34. It's not over til the truth is out.

There is way too much documentation indicating fraud and our democracy is on the line. the Truth will come out and no one can stop it.

[corbett]

35. Even Less Ambiguous - Make Every Vote Count/See That Every Vote Is Counted

Mr. Arnebeck already has laid out in PRECISE detail how Kerry actually won and how it will be proved. That is a simple statement of fact. The rest is spin, even if it comes from a former Kerry mouthpiece.

Senator Kerry made a campaign promise that every vote would count and that every vote will be counted. In Ohio, the only way to fulfill that promise is to conduct a hand recount of the entire state. When that happens, Kerry wins! It's just that simple. It also happens to be the reason why Kerry has sued to preserve all of the election materials to allow for a hand count!

No spin - just facts!

[understandinglife]

41. Bingo! Perfect. Thank you (n/t)

[femme.democratique]

37. That notwithstanding, ever heard of tactical retreat?

Could be that this is merely an intentional deflection. Another plausible course...

[femme.democratique]

38. Kerry should put out a video with such a statement to quell any doubt

The fact that he has NOT done this, presuming he isn't ignorant of the public interest in this important issue, speaks loudly IMO.

[LiberalHeart]

44. Maybe he's waiting for someone in the MSM ....

...to go to the trouble of asking him if he thinks there was fraud in the election. And apparently he'll have a long wait.

[LittleClarkie]

45. I see something different..

Possible view #1:

They can't make the lost votes add up to a Kerry win. So in a sense the election is "over." But Kerry has never said the word fraud anyway. So far he's promised to make sure every vote gets counted, and to work for election reform. He's worked to do the former, and the latter will be an ongoing process. He never promised to flip the election. I'm taking him at face value, and not adding any secret messages until I see clear evidence they're working for something more.

Possible view #2:

Fully-vetted, endorsed by the canidate misinformation campaign covering what they're really doing in court. The actions aren't matching the words. There has to be a reason why.

At least as likely as other theories.

Also, Pitt has interviewed Sen. Kerry, so I expect him to know Kerry a bit more than you or I. And by Pitt's advance warning, I take it he has sources and/or connections within the Kerry circle. I'm going with his assessment right now. At least until I have clear proof otherwise.