O'Reilly's FBI agent brother under investigation by FBI

What horribly awkward timing (5.00 / 3)

My goodness..an embarrassing revelation on a federal investigation comes out a week before the primary.  Shocking coincidence that this would come out now, of all times.  The odds!

I bet it's tough finding a bottle of champagne on Beacon Hill tonight.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 19:07:32 PM CDT

Who on Beacon Hill are you referring to? (6.00 / 2)

This will certainly have no impact on the results as Kerry was clearly going to win handily. If you meant the Senator, he is in DC, where he is doing his job.

 

---

by: Karenc @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 23:20:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Typical Kerry tactic----what a butthole. (4.00 / 3)

I have not seen a shred of evidence that O'Reilly (the special agent) was or ever has been involved in any political investigation of anyone. This man is simply a federal employee that that POS Kerry is going after. Just goes to show you what political hacks at every level of government and in every governmental niche will stoop to.

You wonder why I fear and loathe big government?

---

by: MCRD @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:41:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The only reason you haven't seen the evidence... (6.00 / 3)

...is because you didn't look at it.  From the linked article above:

Michael O'Reilly was once the very public face of a long-running federal influence peddling probe in Greater Springfield.

The investigation yielded federal criminal convictions against dozens of public officials and politically connected. One of the primary areas of inquiry was whether public figures traded their influence for bribes and other favors.

A spokesman for the Office of Special Counsel, the federal agency that investigates Hatch Act violations, said O'Reilly breached plain language in the act by serving as a convention delegate. There, his brother sought - and won - more than the requisite number of delegate votes to appear on the ballot in the Sept. 16 primary.

"The FBI has additional Hatch Act restrictions," said Anthony J. Guglielmi, communications director for the watchdog agency. "They're prohibited from taking part in any partisan political management, and the act expressly prohibits them from being delegates."

If you fear and loathe big government, you definitely should not be voting Republican...

Small dollar year round fundraising: PeanutButterPAC.org

---

by: JohnT001 @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:19:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

SHOW ME THE IMPROPRIETY! (3.00 / 2)

Is there a federal grand jury empanelled for a criminal conspiracy or some sort of a felonious violation of federal law. NO!  This is absolute political hatchet jobs by Kerry. That has been his lifelong tactic. The old knife in the back. Like having his brother do a B&E on his opponents HQ.  Yechhhhhhhhhhhhh. Pray that O'Reilly wins
next week-----for all of our sakes. Then Kerry will pull a delahunt. God is this state ROTTEN.  

---

by: MCRD @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 14:51:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Open your eyes, will you? (5.67 / 3)

From the linked article - opening paragraph:

An FBI agent who led a local corruption probe is under internal investigation for using his own influence to advance his brother's bid to unseat a powerful U.S. senator.

He's under internal investigation - show me where it says that Kerry arranged for this to happen in a "political hatchet job" as you allege.

Small dollar year round fundraising: PeanutButterPAC.org

---

by: JohnT001 @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 15:04:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Show me where the story involves Kerry at all (4.60 / 5)

other than as an opponent. You are desperate.

As to his brother doing a B&E, there were never any charges filed and his story was believed. It was a Republican dirty trick set up - you do know that Colson himself apologized to Kerry for all the things done to him after Colson found God in prison.

There is no credible person in any paper predicting that O'Reilly has a snowballs chance in Hell to win this.

From your comments, it seems pretty clear that your hope for O'Reilly is more to give the RW Beatty a chance. Not exactly what a Democratic primary is for.

---

by: Karenc @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 15:09:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Project much? "Political hacks"= Michael O'Reilly. (5.50 / 2)

---

by: cougar @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:42:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is crazy (6.00 / 4)

1)The FBI reports into the executive branch ie to Bush.
2) O'Reilly is not a threat in the least to Kerry, as has been said in every article. This is likely just a distraction that they would prefer not to have.
3) There is absolutely nothing that shows Kerry has any involvement here.

Look at the other side though.
1) There is a question that O'Reilly's brother should have at least known that there were issues and sought clarity on what he could and couldn't do.
2) It is public record and an accomplishment that he DID lead investigations into corruption. From this one piece of information, his brother's career is more impressive than Ed O'Reilly's.
3) In his brother's case, I don't see any specific claims that he used what he knew as an FBI man to twist arms - which would seem to be the reason for having this law. (Forget the O'Reillys for a minute and think about the possible abuses of power that the FBI could have.)

As to how this affects my opinion of Ed O'Reilly - it doesn't. I can easily believe that a lawyer would not know the provisions of the Hatch Act and have not realized there could be an issue. No one is responsible for what their brother does, even if it is possible that what his brother did helped him.

---

by: Karenc @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:02:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pass the buck much? Jeez. EOR and his family need to own up to their own disgusting behavior. (3.40 / 5)

I have no respect for people who break the law and then try to blame their opponent when their corrupt behavior comes out.

Maybe his brother shouldn't have tried to abuse his office.  

Maybe EOR should have planned a better way to campaign than to have his brother prop his campaign--illegally.

This is purely disgusting behavior from the O'Reilly's standpoint. And it shows an utter lack of maturity and honesty to turn around and blame someone else for their own behavior.

What a Republican thing to do!

---

by: cougar @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:40:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You take "guily until proven innocent" to a whole new level (6.00 / 1)

As I state in a post below, and if you cared to read the posted article, you would have noticed that it is far from certain that Michael O'Reilly broke any law whatsoever (well- except for that informal one about helping to campaign against a Democratic incumbent).

---

by: Z @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:52:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree that he is innocent until proven guilty (6.00 / 5)

but:
1) He is an FBI agent
2) The Hatch act prohibits FBI employees from certain roles

Now, I suggest that YOU give Senator Kerry the same courtesy and assume he is innocent until proven guilty. You immediately and strangely took this story which has NOTHING to do with Senator Kerry and immediately decided he was to blame.

This is an Michael O'Reilly story which can ultimately be nothing more than being negligent in not making sure his actions were in compliance with the Hatch Act or could be as bad as abuse of power. In the article there is no claim of the latter.

---

by: Karenc @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:11:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Informal laws, great attitude (4.50 / 2)

I love informal laws. America's justice system is built on informal laws. Everyone just sorta pick what works for them and go with it.

I'm right with ya, Z. I mean, Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld only sorta broke informal laws about torture. But what the hell- all in good informal fun.

When the Bush Administration makes politics part of the justice system is that also an informal law violation?

---

by: Masshole @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:31:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh (0.00 / 0)

Where to start.  Kerry's people still refuse to write out the guy's name.  Now we're trying to blur the candidate with his family.  Plus, his family is now apparently an elected position.  As a bonus, it turns out that it is Ed O'Reilly, the brother of the man at issue, who planted the story, not a federal politician talking about a federal investigation.  Had we more time, we'd likely have learned that it was Ed O'Reilly, not Sarah Palin, who lobbied for the Alaskan bridge to nowhere.

Another day, more of the same -- avoid the issues, attack the opponent.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 14:28:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nonsense (5.00 / 1)

1) I've seen his own people use his initials here.
2) There is no post saying his brotehr is "an elected position"
3) No one said O'Reilly planted it
4) What do you mean about a federal politician talking about a federal investigation. If you are referring to the Senator, he has personally said nothing - and he has no juristiction over the FBI - Bush does. I think oversight is by Leiberman's committee.

And this comment takes either incredible chutzpah or a complete impossibility to be fair. ("avoid the issues, attack the opponent") THat is true today of you and othe O'Reilly supporters.

The issue here is - what Michael O'Reilly did.
who are you blaming  - Kerry
Why - I really don't know - this is an O'Reilly story PERIOD. Could it be that he's your personal scapegoat carrying the sins of the entire community into the desert.
This topic is revealing - there is NOTHING you will concede is an O'Reilly problem and no problem that Kerry is not to blame for in your opinion.

PS If this was a big Kerry attack trying to avert an O'Reilly victory - don't you think he would have got it in more papers?

---

by: Karenc @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 23:56:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Okay... (0.00 / 0)

1 - Give ma an example.
2 - I was responding to a commenter saying "EOR and his family need to own up to their own disgusting behavior."  The attempt to lump the candidate and the family in one sentence, to stain the candidate with his relative's actions is an old one.  And a failed one.
3 - Take a second look at this very thread.
4 - I'm not blaming Kerry for what O'Reilly did.  I'm saying that believing that the timing of this leak is coincidence requires naivete, not credulity.

Thanks for making Kerry my personal scapegoat.  Thanks for getting through an entire primary without trying to explain Kerry's opposition to equal marriage, constitutional regulation of education, or voting for the war.  Nothing...we just get distractions.  Marriage?  We're told about HRC's voting record, while ignoring marriage.  Education?  We're told it was Ted Kennedy's project -- without explaining Kerry's vote.  The war?  Well, he sorta apologized a while ago so it's okay.

If you're going to run on principles, stand on principles.
If you're going to run on attacks, stand by your attacks.
If you're going to run on attacks, and pretend to be shocked when called on it, don't follow up the protestations with more attacks.

Kerry's going to win, he has the power of inertia on his side.  I'm still trying to figure out why that isn't enough.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 18:15:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

okay (0.00 / 0)

1) Look for yourself - I don't intend to look through threads.
2)The person who wrote that apologized a few posts later - though I almost always agree the poster, I zero rated it and commented on this.
3) I did not see a single post saying that and O'Reiily planted the story.
4) It is paranoid to think that JK could control the timing of anything the FBI does.

Kerry has said that in MA, gay marriage is settled law. He also was not against allowing marriages of out of staters. On the federal level, he voted against DOMA and was against a constitutional amendment - I know of no other legislation in the past or proposed. We have posted all of this and that is all I know. The Bay State Stonewall Democrats endorsed Kerry.

On education, Kerry spoke in both 2004 and there was a speech he gave in SC in late Nov/early December 2003 that I mentioned . The speech was at that time on his web site. What we said was Kennedy's was NCLB and he was the lead sponsor. Kerry and nearly every Democrat voted for it. There were big problems in how it was implemented and that it was not funded. By, the way, Clinton was on the HELP committee that wrote the legislation and voted for it - Kerry was not on the committee.

On the war, Kerry more than apologized, he's led on defining the Democrats' current position. In addition, he was on record saying that more diplomacy was needed and not to rush to war before it started. If you had no problem with Clinton's position, when she did neither of these things, why attack Kerry.

Kerry is running on his positions and they are well known. The one running on attacks is O'Reilly. This diary is not about a Kerry attack on O'Reilly. It is about the FBI investigating O'Reilly's brother. I did not respond to the story itself. I responded to O'Reilly supporters who reading the story ... immediately blamed Senator Kerry.  

---

by: Karenc @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 22:46:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gotta love Springfield (6.00 / 4)

This has Springfield written all over it, not Kerry. I'm guessing a lot of people in Springfield were just itching to drop the dime on Michael after he made their buddies' lives miserable.  

---

by: Masshole @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 19:11:33 PM CDT

Fair use (6.00 / 1)

Folks, it's generally not a good idea to copy entire news articles.  Just excerpt the parts you want.  Copyright laws and everything.

---

by: David @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 19:33:21 PM CDT

Fixed it, David (6.00 / 3)

don't want to end up under investigation too

---

by: Masshole @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 19:36:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair Use, Indeed (0.00 / 0)

Please don't give up so easily!  

The law will eventually come around to an understanding of fair use to allow, in a mostly non-comercial forum, occassional postings of entire newspaper artciles that include additional commentary from the original poster and that invite additional discussion.

Until YouTube is shut down, I urge blog "owners" not to give in, even to those who buy ink by the barrel.

---

by: theloquaciousliberal @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:51:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's all good until (6.00 / 1)

you become the test case.  i don't blame the editors for being careful.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:31:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure I see the problem. (0.00 / 0)

According to the Hatch Act website it appears that even the more restricted jobs can join a town committee as long as they do not hold office, and they can attend political events, as long as they don't organize them.  It seems to be silent on being a convention delegate.  Ushering his brother to an event does not sound like taking a leadership role in planning the event.  Is the law really going to fault him for accompanying his own brother?  I believe the spirit of the law is that federal employees not use their offices to influence an election and it does not seem like that happened here.

---

by: Christopher @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 20:50:30 PM CDT

ok to be a delegate (6.00 / 3)

the Q & A part of the website sxplicitly says it's ok to be a delegate.

Question: Can I attend a state or national party convention? If so, in what capacity?
Answer: Yes. A federal employee may serve as a delegate, alternate, or proxy to a state or national party convention.

A "special advisory" was released in 1996 stating this.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 21:12:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hatch Act (6.00 / 1)

Christopher is correct, I had always believed that their is no issue being a member of a DTC, but you could not hold office within the committee.  Michael O'Reilly should not have needed to resign from the Longmeadow DTC.  The article seems to be pinpointing the issue to being a delegate.  Plus the article noted the following:

Most federal employees can participate in a wide range of political activities. However, national security agencies, including the FBI and CIA, are more sharply regulated. Those groups are prohibited from partisan activity.

I'd be interested to see who they are regulated.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 21:27:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, a quick google was all tht was needed .... (6.00 / 2)

From the OSG website.

Agencies/Employees Prohibited From Engaging in Partisan Political Activity

Employees of the following agencies (or agency components), or in the following categories, are subject to more extensive restrictions on their political activities than employees in other Departments and agencies:

   Administrative Law Judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C. ?5372)
   Central Imagery Office
   Central Intelligence Agency
   Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. ?5372a)
   Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
   Defense Intelligence Agency
   Federal Bureau of Investigation
   Federal Elections Commission
   Merit Systems Protection Board
   National Security Agency
   National Security Council
   Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service)
   Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
   Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)
   Office of Special Counsel
   Secret Service
   Senior Executive Service (career positions described at 5 U.S.C. ? 3132(a)(4))

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 21:31:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh. (6.00 / 1)

that was on the very page i was reading.  guess i wasn't thorough enough.  thanks for the correction!

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

---

by: Laurel @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 21:39:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But did you read the actual list? (5.00 / 1)

According to the website even those employees may engage in certain activities.

Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Not Participate in Partisan Political Activity

These federal employees may-

register and vote as they choose
assist in voter registration drives
express opinions about candidates and issues
participate in campaigns where none of the candidates represent a political party
contribute money to political organizations or attend political fund raising functions
*attend political rallies and meetings
*join political clubs or parties
sign nominating petitions
campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances

These federal employees may not-
be candidates for public office in partisan elections
campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
make campaign speeches
collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
distribute campaign material in partisan elections
organize or manage political rallies or meetings
hold office in political clubs or parties
circulate nominating petitions
work to register voters for one party only
wear political buttons at work  

---

by: Christopher @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:26:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Geez, you'd think EOR (5.40 / 5)

would have a decent handle on the restrictions of the Hatch Act, being an attorney running for elective office  and all........  

 

---

by: lightiris @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 21:15:55 PM CDT

Given that he's running for Senate, you'd think (5.00 / 2)

that he could be bothered to understand just a little of what the office is about. But apparently not (note especially # 3 and # 4).

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? ~ Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: silver blue @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:01:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Apparatchiks for Kerry (3.60 / 5)

So it appears now that the drive of the Kerry campaign is not only to win- but to defame his challenger and punish his family members for daring to take on the Senator...

beyond the pale, really! Moscow circa 1965.  

---

by: Z @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 22:08:43 PM CDT

That's kind out out there IMO (5.83 / 6)

It seems more like someone who's familiar with the Hatch Act dropped a dime on Michael O'Reilly.  Who knows the reason, but the poster might be on to something with the Springfield connection.  It's unfortunate, it's his brother, why would he be able to support him.  But as I'm reading through the OSG, there are some valid reasons why you would prohibit involvement in political activities.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 22:17:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is nothing to suggest Kerry had anything to do with this (5.00 / 3)

Even you have to admit that O'Reilly had no chance of even coming close. I assume that Kerry would have preferred this not happening or happening only after the race was won.

This does not change who O'Reilly is. As to his brother, it appears that he really might have broken the law. Whether you agree with the law or not, it appears it is the law. There is nothing to suggest Kerry had anything to do with it.

It is O'Reilly who has filled the air with smears of the Senator, including repeating some of the SBVT lies. Did thst bother you? Kerry is simply running on his record and working hard as a Senator and leading Democrat.

So what I see is that O'Reilly has run an extremely dirty campaign - which you ignore and if this is true, his brother broke the law. So, who is to blame? Somehow your answer is Kerry.

---

by: Karenc @ Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 23:51:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep (4.50 / 2)

This has "plausible deniability" written all over it.

I'm still waiting to gear what has been dirty about O'Reilly's campaign.  Asking Kerry questions?  Nothing so far to calling in the Chair of the party for some help, or arm-twisting delegates at the convention.


~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:30:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The swift boat smear was very dirty (5.75 / 4)

It was dirty when Rove's minions perpetrated it, and it was dirty when EOR used it for his own political gain.  What's your opinion of that?  You don't think that was dirty politics?

Small dollar year round fundraising: PeanutButterPAC.org

---

by: JohnT001 @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:28:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The crickets (6.00 / 3)

are quite loud today, aren't they?

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? ~ Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: silver blue @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:53:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Deafening... n/t (6.00 / 3)

---

by: Luftmensch @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:08:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's the swift boat story timeline: (2.67 / 3)

Kerry's military record is attacked by the so-called Swift Boaters for Truth, a Republican shill group in the 2004 election. Kerry fails to respond clearly and forcefully. Questions remain. Kerry is interviewed by the Plymouth, MA, newspaper in November 2007, and says he is contemplating another run for the presidency in 2012 and has compiled a dossier to refute the Swift Boat attacks. Boone Pickens, financier of the Republican attackers, picks up the challenge, calls Kerry's bluff, and offers a $1million prize. Kerry is on the hook. The Boston Globe calls Ed O'Reilly and asks his opinion. O'Reilly says Kerry ought to clear up the remaining  questions and put this festering controversy behind him. Immediately O'Reilly is criticized in DailyKos and Blue Mass Group as being a "Republican sympathizer,"  adopting "Republican talking points."

Very strange: When O'Reilly says that Kerry ought to go ahead and clear up the questions, O'Reilly is attacked for acknowledging that there are questions, despite the fact that Kerry himself says he has answers to the questions that the bloggers say don't exist. The Berkshire Eagle presented the contradiction in its most obvious form, saying that John Kerry should "clear up the questions" about his military service while criticizing Ed O'Reilly for saying exactly the same thing. What kind of illogic is that? Kerry should "clear up the questions," but O'Reilly should not say so?

---------------------
Note: The Berkshire Eagle has taken down the link to it's editorial on this. The link -- http://www.berkshireeagle.com/... -- now goes to a page titled "Sink Swift Boat Issue," with the statement "the article ... is no longer available."

-----------------------  

---

by: derrico @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:04:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You posted this all before - and it didn't fly then (4.00 / 3)

You are ignoring the many Daily Kos statements by O'Reilly where he is questioning the Senator's service. You ignore that many of us listed all the information the press had before the attacks occurred and the 36 pages the Kerry team produced documenting the lies in the SBVT book.

There is a huge difference between what Kerry said - which was that they put together proof against all the lies - and putting out lies as O'Reilly did.

It is also nice that you bring up Pickens again - as you were told - Kerry did take up his offer saying they could meet in TX or MA and that the money would go to a veterans organization. Pickens weasiled out instead demanding Kerry's journals, the films Kerry took and various and sundry other things. Then, a group of Kerry's men offereed to sit with Pickens while they went through viewing the films and reading the journals - they didn't even get an answer.

The fact of the matter is that O'Reilly showed that he had no decency when he did this - and  neither do you when you repeat the same thing you said on the Pickens offer not bothering to check out the other side.  

---

by: Karenc @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 00:10:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're also distorting the truth (0.00 / 0)

I believe that was the Quincy Patriot-Ledger, not a Plymouth newspaper, though I can't be sure, and that article was a clear attack on Kerry, slanted to make it look like he said he was contemplating another run even though the question to him was worded to make it look like that.  He never actually said those words.

The only thing Kerry has said or done, all along, has been that he has always made the truth about the Swift Boat Liars available and he always will.

It's liars like Pickens who constantly twist and change their stories and it's Pickens himself who braggingly made a public bet and then welshed when called on it.

---

by: Luftmensch @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 06:32:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

z--EOR's family is like the Republican family. They want an ownership society for everryone else (2.25 / 4)

but not themselves.

They need to OWN UP to their own abuse of power before they can consider even running as a guy in the white hat.

They aren't rescuing anyone but they are bring their own little corrupt family to MA politics.

---

by: cougar @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:45:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think this goes a bit too far, but I agree that (5.50 / 2)

O'Reilly can't run a nasty campaign where he has repeatedly smeared his opponent and at the same time want to be seen as the man in the white hat.

As to the brother, it sounds as though he actually did some work fighting corruption in Springfield. There is nothing yet there that says he abused his power by using what he knew to twist arms. Doing that would make it corrupt, but it might be something far less sinister. There is no reason to call the entire family corupt.

---

by: Karenc @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:20:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Out of Bounds (5.75 / 4)

What do you even know about the O'Reilly family besides what you read in this article?  Ed's father was the fire chief here in Watertown for many years and by all accounts was an honorable man who now has a plaque dedicated to him not two blocks from my house.  

Ed has a lot of family still here in Watertown and I know or have met many of them.  It's ridiculous for you to impugn them because you disagree politically with Ed.

.08 Acres
.0000016% of Massachusetts Political Commentary

---

by: sco @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:33:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok. So I overstated what I meant and If I could I would zero-rate myself. But since I can't let me describe what I mean... (5.50 / 2)

I meant that to me having a brother possibly violate the Hatch Act--who as member of the FBI should know better...And then instead of the EOR supporters holding EOR and his family to the same high standards that they hold John Kerry and his family to, EOR supporters instead turned around and implied incorrect and inaccurate things about Kerry

So I may have spoken too harshly.  

Let me make it plain, all of us need to hold our candidates and their families to should hold Bush, Cheney and any public servant to  accountable to using their posts in government--be it the police, the FBI, the Senate, the Govornership--to obeying all Hatch Laws.

We have already seen the results of a polluted DOJ, and we're living with Republicans who have repeatedly violated the Hatch Act and used their offices and our tax dollars for partisan purposes.  

---

by: cougar @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 13:05:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

fixing grammer (typos) (0.00 / 0)

All of us need to hold our candidates and their families to high standards just like we should hold Bush, Cheney and any public servant accountable to correctly filling their posts (jobs) in government.  We pay their salary.  So no matter what they do --be it the police, the FBI, the Senate, the Govornership--it shouldn't be acceptable....

 

---

by: cougar @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 13:19:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, Mr. "Innocent until proven guilty". (5.67 / 3)

Please provide evidence of the Senator having anything to do with this.  I mean, you have ZERO evidence yet you level accusations.  You remind me of the Kerry hating freepers, babbling that everything that goes wrong in your candidate's or candidate's family HAS to be Kerry's fault.  Gee, seems to me that Ed and his family can screw things up all on their own without anyone else's help.

"Truth is the American bottom line." -- John Kerry, April 22, 2006 at Faneuil Hall

---

by: beachmom @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:46:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Moscow 1965- exactly (6.00 / 2)

Wow, you hit the nail right on the head, Z. When I think of the 2008 Massachusetts Democratic Primary the very first thing that pops into my head is 1965 Moscow. It's freakin' uncanny. Communist Soviet Union, its people trapped behind the Iron Curtain, no rights, no justice versus democratic Massachusetts, its people trapped behind the people in front of them at Dunkin' Donuts, equal rights, total justice. I can't believe I didn't see this connection earlier.

Z- you have a hell of a point. Here's the FBI, run by an Attorney General and White House who hate John Kerry, obviously taking their marching orders from John Kerry, dedicating tremendous resources to "defame" his challenger and "punish" his brother. JUST LIKE IN THE SOVIET UNION!

As I remember Soviet history, political opponents were always being "defamed" and their family members were always being punished. So, as you so brilliantly point out, when can I expect Ed O'Reilly and his brother to be sent to a gulag on Nantucket or executed in the basement of the Skull & Bones clubhouse at Yale? I can barely sleep I'm so excited! :)

---

by: Masshole @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:44:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Transparency, Fairness, the Hatch Act, etc.! (6.00 / 3)

People in federal service know they are regulated by the Hatch Act for a reason.  Personnel in sensitive national security and law enforcement positions know that they are under heightened scrutiny for a reason.

Pre-Nixon, we all suspected that some agencies did things for the administration in power.  FBI agents know they must be careful not to create even the appearance of favoritism.

Jawyers should know of or research these laws.  Politicians must know the peril that one takes by having an FBI special agent working on behalf of his campaign, even if it is his brother.

There is a reason why FBI agents get heightened scrutiny and subjected to stricter regulation than run-of- the-mill federal employees.

---

by: peabody @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:31:50 AM CDT

Could you please substantiate (0.00 / 0)

whatever led to the 'twisting arms' rhetoric? Was the brother threatening to use his FBI office to punish delegates who supported Kerry? Exactly what did he do that led you to use that phrase?

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:57:06 AM CDT

"Twisting arms" (5.75 / 4)

First off, I'm not a journalist. But to me, as a longtime political dork and someone who's active in MA politics, the description of Michael working for his brother at the convention sounds a lot like "twisting arms." I'm not suggesting the guy was flashing his badge but it seems pretty clear from the quotes of delegates from the Springfield area that the presence of Michael, someone who ran an anticorruption investigation and almost certainly would be in a position to make anti-O'Reilly delegates' lives a tad uncomfortable (though I'm not suggesting that actually happened), was at a minimum unsettling.

And that is exactly why people in Michael's profession aren't allowed to play that role in politics- the nature of their job and the information they possess (or can easily access) gives them leverage over their fellow voters. It's really that simple.

Michael and Ed should have known better. Hell, if they had just had Michael whip delegates from Greater Boston this probably never would have come out. But for some reason- and I think this is what is sketchy- they chose to have Michael whip probably the only people in Tsongas Arena who knew he was a FBI agent. Below are the quotes from the Springfield delegates:

Some Western Massachusetts political observers said they like Kerry's challenger but were unsettled by Michael O'Reilly's out-in-front role in his brother's campaign, given his past role as anti-corruption crusader.

"I saw him passing out literature at the state convention. I avoided him, but I had lots of folks mention to me that he was there, and I think they were inclined to help him, knowing who he was," Democratic State Committee Chairman and delegate E. Henry Twiggs, of Springfield, said.

Springfield City Councilor Bud L. Williams, also a convention delegate, said O'Reilly polled him at the event about who he would endorse.

"I told him, 'I like your brother, but I'm with John Kerry,'" Williams said, being vague about O'Reilly's response. "I thought he was his campaign manager. ... He was asking everyone for votes."

---

by: Masshole @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:30:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you did (0.00 / 0)

...someone who ran an anticorruption investigation and almost certainly would be in a position to make anti-O'Reilly delegates' lives a tad uncomfortable (though I'm not suggesting that actually happened)...

I think your 'twisting arms' phrase is suggesting exactly that. The excerpt you posted says he was handing out literature and asking for votes. It doesn't say he was doing those things only with people who knew who he is. Are you saying that it was only with those people?

If those things are prohibited to FBI agents, then it's a disciplinary matter for them, but I still don't see any arm-twisting.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:13:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The action that would be arm-twisting is not passing out the literature (5.00 / 1)

and simply asking for votes - it would be suggesting he could make anti-O'Reilly delegates' lives a tad uncomfortable.

That is the reason the law exists even though it may not have happened.

At this point, very little is known.  

---

by: Karenc @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 13:29:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What does a "whip" do? (6.00 / 2)

Perhaps you just don't like the term "arm twisting," but I can't think of a more apt description of what a whip does at a convention. And even if Michael wasn't technically a whip, if you're asking for votes at a convention, you're twisting arms- you're trying to flip voters, convince Kerry supporters to support O'Reilly (or vice versa), etc.

And typically the campaign will employ a whip who knows the local area/politics. Hey, it makes perfect sense.

But I'm not sure where the confusion lies when the quotes say things like "I was inclined to help him, knowing who he was."

Kirth- why was Henry Twiggs so inclined to help him because he knew who Michael O'Reilly was? Because he was just the sort of go-get-em progressive Twiggs loves or because he was the FBI agent featured in numerous Republican stories about busting corrupt pols? As I said in my initial post- I'm not suggesting Michael O'Reilly was flashing his badge and making threats.

But he should have known the law and avoided being in the position he chose to put himself in.  

---

by: Masshole @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:26:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"the quotes" (0.00 / 0)

You mean "one quote."

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 13:35:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am less worried by some inapproppriate behaviour by the O'Reillys than by the clear lack of knowledge (5.83 / 6)

of Ed O'Reilly concerning some laws that are well known by everybody who cares about this issues. The Hatch Act is not exactly an obscure law, and he is a lawyer.

I am also amazed here by people starting accusing the Kerry campaign without even a shadow of a proof, but, given how this campaign has been followed, I guess I should not.

---

by: FrenchGirlFromMA @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:43:58 AM CDT

There is no Hatch Act violation there...there is a pathetic charge though (5.25 / 4)

Who is zooming who here?  Running for delegate to a political party convention and giving any candidate a ride to a political event, even a fundraising event, are not a violations of the Hatch Act.  

The title of this post is designed to deceive...it reminds me of the old trick when a campaign would get a supporter to write a letter to the Ethics Commission and demand an investigation on some bogus issue...the Commission would be required to look into whatever cockamaymee charge was made...then someone would leak to the press that the Ethics Commission was investigating the opponent...when press called the Ethics Commission they would get the legally required answer "We cannot confirm or deny or comment on ongoing investigations."...by the time the non-issue was resolved the election was already over...damage done.

And you wonder why people hate politics?

Considering the poll numbers, the Senator has no worry at all...it was truly beneath the Kerry Team to engage in this kind of stuff...what in heck are they afraid of?

I think they may just be angry that during the mini-no-one-watched debate, O'Reilly got him to publicly state he would serve out his full term if elected...which was not part of the game plan.

---

by: HLPeary @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:04:44 AM CDT

Exactly (6.00 / 1)

There is no evidence of a violation of the Hatch Act- only the possibility of an "appearance of impropriety" according to the division consule.

I'm glad this story was front-paged, though, because it is more of a reflection more of the very undemocratic nature of the Mass Democratic Party than it is on the O'Reillys' propriety.  

---

by: Z @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:25:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And there is no evidence of Kerry having anything to do with this. (5.67 / 3)

Talk about dishonesty.  You're discussing phantoms here without a shred of evidence.

"Truth is the American bottom line." -- John Kerry, April 22, 2006 at Faneuil Hall

---

by: beachmom @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:49:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Campaign smear 101 (1.80 / 5)

"Save your last ace-in-the-whole for exactly one week before election day to ensure maximum impact"

Of course I cannot prove that this story was not pushed/instigated by the Kerry campaign, specifically, but if we're talking about the "Appearance of impropriety," than it is my opinion that this story has Brigid O'Rourke's grubby little hands all over it.  

---

by: Z @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:03:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Grubby little hands? (5.75 / 4)

First you accuse the Kerry Team of having a hand in this and then you can't provide evidence to prove it. And if that's not specious enough, you proceed to smear Brigid O'Rourke with coded words that smack of sexist contempt, claiming she is at least in part responsible for this story. You lost credibility by this personal attack.

---

by: Kerstin @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:42:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are delusional on many counts (6.00 / 1)

1) Kerry is going to win handily - his four aces are - his accomplishments, his character, his potential to do good, and his stature. In each of these suits, O'Reilly was dealt Twos. (This being a game where Aces are top)

2) As to maximum impact. I assume it will have next to none. I think a majority of O'Reilly votes will be ABK votes, many by rw Republicans - hoping to go against the extremely weak O'reilly rather than Kerry. As I think the vote is not about O'Reilly, this likely won't change it - they will still be against Kerry.

3) "Grubby little hands"??  Everything I have ever seen from Bridget O'Rourke has been profession, above board and what people would expect from someone in her position. She has been an excellent advocate for her boss. They likely both were simply looking forward to simply never hearing of O'reilly again after Tuesday. I would guess the last thing they want is for Ed O'Reilly to be in the news at all. It is also quite unlikely that ANY Senator would hire someone with "grubby" hands. Your attacks on her are unseemly.

---

by: Karenc @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 13:59:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Z, why do you hate Brigid O'Rourke? (6.00 / 2)

You have an unseemly thing about Brigid O'Rourke. You've called for her to be fired- for, gasp, calling your boss/brother/DUI lawyer out for being exactly the unqualified, uncredentialed, unprepared candidate that he is. That seems pretty harsh, Z. And every time her name is mentioned, you jump at the chance to make a comment. It's sorta creepy.

 

---

by: Masshole @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 22:05:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Massachusetts party does not control the front page - or any other page- of the paper (5.50 / 2)

My guess as to why it is front page here? I think it may indicate that the OP was right in saying it was a Springfield issue and because Michael O'Reilly himself led the FBI investigation of the corruption in the city.  That is why it is a bigger story here than elsewhere.

Turn this around, and assume it was a Kerry relative who did this and tell me you wouldn't be hear demanding Kerry resign.

---

by: Karenc @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 13:35:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your comments on the "Kerry team" are paranoid (6.00 / 4)

John Kerry has no control of the FBI, who could even investigate him if there were cause. As to the comment on serving out his entire term - he has said the same thing for the last year. Note the similarity of language in this May 29, 2008 article - it is nearly verbatim what he said in the debate.

http://www.johnkerryforsenate....
(I apologize in advance that the link goes to the Senator's site - it is just far easier to find the link there.)

This is also nearly the same thing that David Wade, then Bridget O'Rouke seemed to have to repeat on a daily basis.

Considering the poll numbers, my guess is that Team Kerry just wanted to get through Tuesday, so the Senator would no longer have to deal with a Democrat, willing to sink to the level of arguing for the SBVT charges. I am willing to bet that no one associated with Kerry had anything to do with this as it just extends the time when O'Reilly will be mentioned.

John Kerry has shown a higher level of integrity in his entire life than most people in government do. Why would a man, who took the high road because it was the right thing to do when fighting a battle stacked against him in 2004, not do the same a week before an election where he will win in a landslide. I seriously doubt his side wanted this controversy.

---

by: Karenc @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:42:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

John Kerry is the King of the FBI (6.00 / 2)

Obviously John Kerry- who has no influence according to the O'Reilly campaign- has the power to get George Bush, Dick Cheney, the AG and FBI to bring the (nerf) hammer down on Michael O'Reilly.

And Kerry publicly stated he would serve out his full term! Jesus Mary and Joseph! Gas up the jet, Teresa! We gotta skedaddle to Mount Weather before the Illuminati discover we stole all that gold from the Masons! O'Reilly must have stolen the secret medallion during Sheriff Ashe's clambake.  

---

by: Masshole @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 21:49:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Damn. (0.00 / 0)

I thought this was in reference to Bill O'.

Oh well.  Best of luck EO'R and fam.

---

by: stomv @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:56:26 AM CDT

John Kerry = dirty politics, which is why we need change in Washington. (1.00 / 5)

This is John Kerry's attempt at a September surprise.  I'm sure Kerry's campaign called the Republican and asked them to do some investigative reporting.  Then the Kerry campaign says they don't comment on things like this. Ha! Ha!.  I loathe John Kerry, he is dirty in his politics, ugly in his heart.
Ed O'reilly has never tried to hide the fact that
his brother is a supporter and that he works for the FBI. I think this should definitely be reviewed to see if laws have been broken.  I am still supporting Ed O'reilly, proudly and enthusiastically.

---

by: liveandletlive @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:20:45 AM CDT

Unsubstantiated b.s. (6.00 / 5)

---

by: KBusch @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:21:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Funny, the guy is caught apparently breaking the law (5.25 / 4)

(note the Hatch Act's special restrictions on FBI agents, pointed out above)

and yet you want to insinuate that someone else is "dirty" for being involved in catching the miscreant? Oh my. Especially given that there is NO evidence that Kerry had any involvement whatsoever, but there are probably quite a few Democrats in Massachusetts, and a few enemies of O'Reilly (specifically from Springfield), who would know about the Hatch Act and are aware of the role Michael has been playing on the campaign.

However, let me state for the record that if someone breaks the law and the FBI just decides for whatever reason to announce the investigation just prior to the election, I have zero problem with that, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or other. The only time I would have a problem - and that will include this case, if it turns out that way - is if it turns out the charges were trumped up on non-existent or extremely flimsy evidence. In that case it would look like it was designed to affect the election. But assuming that there is some real evidence (and it appears there is, and a great many witnesses, in this case), then you can't expect the FBI to sit on it until after an election. Why should they?

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? ~ Mahatma Gandhi

---

by: silver blue @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:09:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, we aren't going to know anything until after next Tuesday.... (0.00 / 0)

Well, we aren't going to know anything until after next Tuesday now are we.  Ed O'reilly has been campaigning for this Senate seat since 2007.  I find it EXTREMELY odd, that this would make front page news 7 days before the election.
It has dirty politics written all over it, whether it be
John Kerry, the MassDems, angry Springfield politicians or any other group, this is what makes me sick about our political system.  There is a lot that I would love to say but don't because ... by the way... did you know....after Sept 16th the race isn't over.  If John Kerry wins this election he will go up against Jeff Beatty, the sneaky little politician laying really low right now, very anxious to run against Kerry. Why is he anxious to run against Kerry, because Kerry's approval ratings in Massachusetts are not the majority. I hear that also when I'm out knocking on doors for Ed.  So go ahead and help John Kerry win, we will be kissing him good-bye in November anyway.
Hello Jeff Beatty, the new Senator from Massachusetts.
Thanks alot Kerry supporters.

---

by: liveandletlive @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 14:23:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are in a dream world (3.00 / 2)

Kerry is polling  20 to 30 points ahead of BOTH O'Reilly and Beatty. Kerry's latest approval rating was 59%.  No one has bothered to poll O'Reilly vs Beatty. The Rassmusen Report said Kerry has a 99% chance to be re-elected.  He would be crazy to prefer running against Kerry. Kerry has not bothered to attack O'Reilly's past in any way - but a Republican would.,

The story was NOT even in the Boston Globe.

Believ it or not there is not secret rule that gives control of the FBI to whomever is the JR Senator from MA or to the tallest Senator. They are part of the executive branch, run by a President who really does not like the Seantor.

I know that the fact that O'Reilly is not going to win is a disappointment to you, but he never has gained traction.

---

by: Karenc @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 00:37:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you talking about the poll from August 7th (0.00 / 0)

The one that shows John Kerry is viewed by
nearly half of voters (49%) as "average" and 22% believe him to be an embarrassment to his party.  That poll said nothing about Ed O'reilly.  John Kerry's polling from
May of 08 was 63% Kerry, 25% Beatty, on August 5th
it was Kerry 56% to Beatty 29%. That is trending downward and quickly. Don't you find that to be a problem?  Do you want a republican in office?
John Kerry is a very smug, self centered man who feels he
owns his Senate seat.  But you are one of those 24% who find him a very favorable man.  If Ed O'reilly would be elected, we would see a trend toward something getting done
in the Senate, if you prefer to stick with the "Stagnant
Quo" it is your right. And it's people like you that hold this country back all of the time.  

---

by: liveandletlive @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 15:35:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As a person who worked as a statistician for 24 years, (0.00 / 0)

I do not see a problem. The difference could be mostly statistical variation.  The difference is not closing anywhere near fast enough to suggest that he could get to 50 plus percent in the last month.

As to the other numbers - there is a tendency when given 3 choices to pick the middle. In this case the design is extremely poor. At any rate, I doubt O'Reilly would rate anywhere near as high.

In fact, the true test in the long ago polls that you were referring to showing less than 50% wanted him to run - he still beat all the head to head races with potential Congressional opponents by double digits.

I completely disagree with you that he is either smug or self-centered. A truly self-centered person would not risk his life at 25 to save someone else.

There is NO way that a pretty unimpressive freshman Senator would be a leader or able to create change. Kennedy and Kerry have been leaders of the progressive wing. Without Kennedy, there are not that many likely leaders of that wing of the party who have the needed seniority.

---

by: Karenc @ Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 17:24:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's a pretty far-fetched talking point. Kerry actually has a reputation in DC of not playing (4.00 / 3)

dirty politics.  In fact, a large group of people were angry at him because they claim he's not a dirty politician like Bush, Cheney and Rove, and they like to blame him because he didn't go dirty and use dirty politics.

People can't have it both ways.

Besides...Kerry's reputation and integrity and his anti-corruption actions have always preceded him.  

---

by: cougar @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 13:14:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What unmitaged garbage (6.00 / 2)

Kerry does not have a reputation for dirty politics. In 2004, many Democrats argued with his insistence in running a high road campaign. (I personally am convinced that it would not have been close had he done otherwise.) John and Teresa Kerry are two of the best people this country has.

You have to be crazy to think that it is even in Kerry's interest to have that story out there. Every single report indicates he is the prohibitive winner - and that it is not even close. I have yet to see a single article even suggesting he could break 30%.

Your blind hatred must be hard to live with.  

---

by: Karenc @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 14:12:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pleaseeeee.... (5.50 / 2)

...the last thing Kerry wants is any publicity for O'Reilly good or bad at this point. It seems clear from the special restrictions, and the noted investigation actions, that it was more than a little cheesy for an FBI agent to be a delegate at the state convention and whipping for his brother. But who cares, kerry was going to win in a walk any way.

ProgressiveMan

---

by: ProgressiveMan @ Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 13:22:36 PM CDT