Holy Moses. This is getting more surreal all the time.
Reilly yesterday also invoked his authority as attorney general to protect people’s privacy, appearing to leave the door open to investigating the leak. “We’ll see where this goes,” Reilly said. “These are private, confidential financial records, OK? And to leak them in an effort to get at me and put them on the front pages of The Boston Globe is wrong. It’s just wrong.”
When pressed, Reilly would not say whether he is contending that the leak was illegal. “Whether it’s illegal or not isn’t the issue,” he said. “It’s flat out wrong.” [my emphasis.]
I don’t know, maybe the reporter (Scott Helman) is reading too much into that remark; it doesn’t sound like an outright “no” to me. If that’s a veiled threat, it’s 1. insane, 2. empty, and 3. politically toxic. But I suppose Tom’s already drunk the hemlock already — perhaps thinking it’s victory champagne.
Here’s the moral of the story:
Before speaking to reporters yesterday, Reilly watched as fourth-graders at the Tobin School got a lesson in how to avoid fights, bullying, and conflict. Reilly asked the pupils what they had learned.
“You learn how to be more friendly to people . . . and you get to solve problems without fighting,” one student said.
“That’s wonderful,” Reilly responded, smiling.
Take it from Tom Reilly, folks: Accentuate the positive.
Let’s drop the Big Dig Investigation and get right to the bottom of this one.
<
p>
<
p>
While AG Tom Reilly probably plans an Indictment of Chris Gabrilei in the last few days before the primary, are there any other suspects he should be looking at?
<
p>
A) Any Internal Reilly Campaign Moles that have failed to be recognized, promoted, are disgruntaled? Who leaked that “Killer Coke” e-mail anyway? How’s that investigation coming? Was that “privedged, private info” also?
<
p>
B) How about other close confidantes in the Rep. Marie St.Fluer camp with an axe to grind about the way the whole fiasco went down? What if they feel this was a setup from the beginning make points with the minority community against Deval’s inroads in the minority community
<
p>
C) Some of the many Axegrinders coming out of Middelsex County that Tom never took care of,that by coincidence, or misfiling, had access to the report, that has an axe to grind with Tom Reilly over a job loss, a prosecution or whatever??
<
p>
D) Some of the many Axegrinders coming out of Massachusetts that Tom never took care of,that by coincidence, or misfiling, had access to the report, that has an axe to grind with Tom Reilly over a job loss, a prosecution or whatever??
<
p>
E) Last but not least, are we sure the campaign paid the investigator on time and the right ammount?
<
p>
Something tells me we haven’t hit bottom yet and there’s only 10 days left…
Okay, this is too vintage Reilly. The man only has one tool in his box — a hammer. There is no problem that vigorous prosecution can’t solve! Tom sure is tough on (insert topic).
I still think this is probably the most plausible option. Release it yourself and then give yourself the excuse to act like a pitbull and attack another canidate. The old if I am not going to win, I will make sure you don’t either mentality. Tom needs an emergency session with his therapist already – he is imploding in a major way!
The one that read the report and said, no problem, let’s announce on schedule, the press releases are out anyway, and the other one that claims they’ve never seen it before.
<
p>
The only way number one could figure out how to give it to number two was to drop it in an envelope to the Globe?
<
p>
I’d sure like to be a fly on the wall when number two finds out it was number one that released the report…
<
p>
Time to call in Sherlock Holmes to get to the bottom once and for all.
<
p>
Yep. That’s all I got.
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on BMG, so I’ve got a legal question:
<
p>
Clearly it is a violation of law IF St. Fleur’s lawyer released the tax information, right? But what if it was someone else? Were privacy agreements (correct term?) signed before the investigation? By whom? Would they be held legally responsible and in what way would they be punished for leaking it?
<
p>
For example:
1. Tom Reilly handed it over to Phillips – Illegal?
2. Tom Reilly staffer, who had not signed any privacy agreement “absent mindedly” leaves it on someone’s desk at the Globe, illegal?
3. Similarly, Gabrielli staffer happens to see a copy of it mysteriously apppear on their desk, illegal to hand it to the Globe?
4. Someone, searching for their lost dental retainer in the garbage finds it and mails it to the Globe, illegal?
<
p>
By my count there are approximately one gazillion variations of the above scenarios. So where is the line drawn between improper behavior and illegal (assuming the leaker is ever even found)?
<
p>
And what is the punishment? A lawyer that passed it over could be disbarred, but what about a non-lawyer? What happens to them?
Let me get this straight… Reilly attacks Gabrieli, claiming his campaign chair released private financial information for political gain. At the same time, Reilly attacks Gabrieli and Patrick for NOT releasing their own private financial info for his own political gain, to the point of airing a TV commercial based solely on that issue. Regardless of whether or not the Gabrieli campaign was involved in some sort of leak, Reilly has attempted to score points over private finances for months, and sounds foolish trying defend privacy while he runs a TV ad attacking it.
<
p>
It seems to me that all that Reilly can do is react to his latest screw-up, and ends up tripping over himself in the process.
I was wondering if in lieu of proof whether Clueless Tom was also concerned about Cheryl Cronin’s privacy? Or is he the guy who is actually willing to do or say anything to try to become governor & deflect blame for his mistakes?
How did Reilly get elected state-wide? Here’s a guy who totally blew the caucuses with the St. Fleur fiasco, the Globe reports that he knew about it in advance, and now he’s making statements that keep his previous stupidity in the news. Tom doesn’t seem brain-dead otherwise, but he’s right about one thing: He’s not good at politics. I think we need someone who can learn a little faster.