Part of this Olbermann story could get Grijalva in trouble.

[Renew Deal]

<snip>
Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.
<snip>

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44734.html

Did Olbermann promise Grijalva money to appear on his show? Did Grijalva solicit a contribution in exchange for an appearance?

You can call me anything you want, but this has the makings of an ethical disaster.

[sufrommich]

1. Yeah, I have a feeling the Grijalva appearance is what got

him in trouble. Once Politico broke the story, there wasn't much MSNBC could do.

[HughMoran]

2. Which is why they took the extreme measure of suspending him

[Berry Cool]

3. No, he made his contribution AFTER the appearance.

Move on, nothing to see here.

[Renew Deal]

7. Was there any discussion about a contribution before the appearance?

[Kalyke]

11. Since he made it after the apparence, no.

[Renew Deal]

15. How do you know?

Maybe the agreemant was you appear, and I'll donate?

I doubt very much that this happened, but how do you know? And that's the point.

[HereSince1628]

4. A small storm in a wading pool, I am guessing.

If Grijalva's head isn't held face down, the dunking will turn out ok.

[phleshdef]

5. Ignorant. Since when would Olbermann have to pay the co chair of the progressive caucus to appear...

...on his show... for probably like the umpteenth time at that.

[Renew Deal]

10. How do you know?

How do you know a deal wasn't made?

[JonLP24]

16. How do we know a deal was made?

Is the question that should be asked. Not asking if someone can prove someone's innocence when AFAIK no one is making a claim a deal took place.

[Renew Deal]

20. The problems lie in getting that answer

So far we know there was an unethical act on Olbermann's part and a donation after an appearance. If Grivalja had any arrangement with Olbermann there will be an FEC problem. I don't doubt this is completely innocent, but proving that could be a problem for all involved.

[JonLP24]

26. Well

I disagree it was unethical on part of Olbermann. I would feel differently if he was on NBC Nightly News or something like that but he has an opinion show. Like the editorial section of a newspaper. Those guys aren't required to be unbiased or whatever. They aren't if they are giving their opinion every week night.

As far as problems or whatever, I'm not worried about it. If they can prove something, fine. If they can't, also fine.

[phleshdef]

17. Because for one, I have some common fucking sense.

$2400 is chump change. "Deals" in the manner that you are speaking of involve real money. On top of that, Olbermann of all people knew his contribution would become public knowledge beforehand.

Grijalva has appeared on Keith's show many times.

Grijalva would not need to paid to come on a major cable news show during campaign season. ALL of them want those kinds of appearances.

Stop it with this shit, you are bordering on trolling at this point.

[Renew Deal]

23. How do you know?

And how do you know that the other two contributions weren't part of the "deal?" Are you beginning to understand the problem that this contribution may cause? Getting the answer to the question about a "deal" is going to bad for Olbermann AND Grijalva.

[phleshdef]

27. Ooooh, how do you know? **Spooky fingers**

How do you know that the FEMA death camps don't exist? I can't prove that they don't!

[Renew Deal]

29. Actually you can.

But whatever.

[phleshdef]

32. Hey, if you don't want to be mocked, don't make silly OPs that are so blatantly mockable

[Renew Deal]

34. Who's being mocked?

I thought the post was just as irrational as the previous ones.

[phleshdef]

38. Lulz, irrational. "Dude, KO is making super secret deals with Rep G, paid him 2400 whole fucking $$"

[lob1]

19. And how do you know a deal was made? The guy has

been on Keith's show on a regular basis since Arizona brought up its immigrant bill. That's several months now. I think Keith liked his politics. Of course, it's very clear in every MSNBC
contract that only republicans like Joe Scarborough and Pat Bucanan can contribute to other republicans.

[Renew Deal]

24. Right

We don't know, but it sure looks bad. I bet the FEC, CREW, or the House Ethics Committee might be interested in finding out.

[atreides1]

21. How do you know one was?

[Renew Deal]

25. That's the point

It looks bad and someone is going to want the answer to that question.

[emulatorloo]

12. of course not. But the Washington Post or NYT can be willfully ignorant at times

Not just them - maybe some other big newspaper "expose" coming and MSNBC doing damage control?

[emulatorloo]

6. So maybe MSNBC doing damage control in advance of a news story? n/t

[Ian David]

8. Glenn Beck made a donation to FreedomWorks live, on the air. n/t

[emulatorloo]

14. doubt there is an "ethics clause" in his contract.

[Kalyke]

9. How about this.

Keith, the person, was impressed with Grijalva, the candidate, when Keith, the interviewer, interviewed him. So then Keith, the person, went into his office after Keith, the interviewer, was done with his show, grabbed his blackberry, headed to Grijalva's site and made a freakin' donation.

[Renew Deal]

13. That's probably what happened

But getting that answer will be a witch hunt.

[phleshdef]

18. Yea, basically the same way a lot of us end up expressing our freedom of speech for candidates.

[Innocent Smith]

22. Nope

Grijalva needed Olbermann a whole lot more than Olbermann needed Grijalva.

If anyone was going to pay it would have been Grijalva paying him.

[Nite Owl]

28. Why would anyone get a contribution

for an appearance? The opportunity to appear on a show like Keith's is worth it's weight in votes on it's own.

[Renew Deal]

30. It doesn't matter

It's the possibility that is the problem.

[EFerrari]

39. Baloney. You know how many "possibilities" can be raised about you

at this moment?

That's just scurrilous.

People would PAY to be on the show, not the other way around.

[Renew Deal]

42. Raise them

It can be argued that both benefited from the deal. Olbermann got a guest and Grijalva got cash. It's the appearance of impropriety that makes it bad.

[EFerrari]

45. Ridiculous. Keith doesn't need to pay anyone to appear on that show.

That is just smearing.

[Renew Deal]

46. I agree that he doesn't need to.

It's about how it looks and how it can be perceived. The story was bad when it became news that he donated. But donating to someone that was on his show the same day looks terrible.

[blondeatlast]

41. Only to people who care what Politico and its big brother FAUX think.

As you seem to.

[Renew Deal]

43. Are you saying that the Politico statment is untrue?

Also, apparently a lot of people on DU care what Politico thinks. I found that link on DU. :shrug:

[originalpckelly]

31. Holy crap, even if it is OK, it don't look right.

[EC]

33. That was the only reason Angle appeared anywhere

was to get money...she'd have to be held accountable for it too...Besides KEITH doesn't pay his guests - MSNBC does...

[Renew Deal]

35. What?

MSNBC pays guests?

[EC]

36. I'm sure that like any other show that has guests on

they are paid a minimum payment...years ago it was like $350. - a small amount, but yes they did pay something...

[EFerrari]

37. Good grief. Thank you, Politico, for spreading cr@p all over the internet.

[blondeatlast]

40. Unrec for using Politico and for being cheerful about this.

Wish I could do it twice.

[Egnever]

44. Yup and thats why Kieth is suspended.

All the lunatic fringe conspiracy crap is bullshit.