It has been ten days since the story that Diane Denish had
reconvened her transition team, first surfaced. For almost
two weeks, no one, apparently, has been willing to attach
their own name to a denial.
Now, according to Jay Miller, Inside the Capital, link,
someone has finally attached their name and reputation to a
denial;
"... according to press secretary Josh Rosen there is
absolutely no truth to the rumor."
And with that, the rumor is finally laid to rest, along with the
hope that Bill Richardson was about to pay for pay for play;
at least for now.
2 comments:
According to a newspaper release, Denish has her campaign FINANCE Manager ready to go (again):
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/mobile/ERB-court-deposition-proves-stressful
Unfortunately for her, it's Bruce Mallott, and he's gonna be tied up a lot w/ suponeas in federal court.
Sam Bregman / Marty Esquivel / Bruce MAllott / Marc Correra / Mrs Correra / Gov Richardson / Gil Lavato
What do all these have in common? If you are a fan of soaps or Harper Valley PTA, then you can keep up. Unfortunately this is real life.
Synopsis:
Richardson appoints Mr. Correra as a financial campaign manager, then Richardson hires Mrs. Correra as his "director of protocol". How convenient. Mr. Correra takes several million Tax payer $$ in commisions for bad investments he sold to APS Retirement Board while another friend of Richardson, Bruce Mallott, is the Chair of the retirement Board.
The multimillion $$ investments are bust, as they are based in the subprime lending schema, and sold out of Chicago under "Vanderbilt" company.
Now, Marty Esquivel will be the defending attorney for Mallott, and Sam Bergman will be the defending attorney for Mr. Correra. Esquivel and Bergman will have to work together in order to prove their alleged co-conspirators innocent.
During their new found allegiance, will they have time to discuss Esquivel's APS Board nemesis, Gil Lavato, of whom is being defended by Bergman in a separate case?
And does Esquivel realize that as the APS Board Chair, he is being unfaithful to the board representing a man who allegedly conned many people that he is sworn to uphold and protect?
And does Esquivel realize,as I'm sure his client Mr. Correra does, that as the School Board president, that his position in defending this guy is an implied "perk", even if the guy is guilty?
And what was the role of Mrs. Correra being placed in charge of "protocol"? Was it to protect her husbands illicit gains?
I used to like Bill Richardson a lot. Now I find myself deeply appalled!
Post a Comment