|
HAMBRICK’S MODIFIED LIMITED HANGOUT
Turns out I was wrong about something. But I’ll get to that and correct the record
later in this report.
And seriously, folks.
I know this is a lot of inside baseball and it’s the Christmas season
and all, so if you’re not interested in this stuff just stop reading right here
and get back to baking cookies and wrapping presents. For everyone else, onward…
For those of you who checked your email and Twitter early enough
this morning, hopefully you got my message and tuned into Alan Stock’s interview of Speaker-of-the-Weak John Hambrick on KDWN 720 AM.
It was unbelievable.
No. Literally. Hambrick was unbelievable. As in, you can’t believe a word this guy
says! Yet some of what he revealed today
is truly EXPLOSIVE. So let’s get
at it…
AND HIS NOSE GREW THREE FEET
Right off the bat, Stock asked Hambrick about the kerfuffle
between him and conservative Assembly Majority Leader Michele Fiore – and yes, after listening to the interview, I’m
convinced that Fiore is still the Majority Leader. But we’ll get to that later, too.
Hambrick started his 90-minute long dissembling with this
statement relating to his election as Speaker-designate by the Nevada
Republican Assembly Caucus on December 2, 2014…
In the immortal words of Rep. Joe Wilson, “You lie!”
Now, I know that some will be a little uncomfortable with
such a stark statement using the “lie” word.
So let’s go with: “That’s a world-class whopper the size of an ocean
liner!”
Is that better?
I know that Hambrick’s statement isn’t true because before
the December 2nd caucus meeting I spoke directly with him and asked if he wanted
the position. He said absolutely
yes. And I do recognize that that’s my
word against his.
But there’s more…
And this is where I was wrong and need to correct the
record.
HOW SPEAKER VOTE #2 REALLY WENT DOWN
Going into the December 2 caucus meeting, my understanding
was that moderate Assemblyman Paul
Anderson had 12 votes for Speaker-designee and conservative Assemblyman John Ellison had 12 votes, with
then-Speaker-designee Ira Hansen
being the tie-breaking vote.
But the day before, Hambrick suddenly announced that he was
running for Speaker, as well. Believe
me, nobody on our side asked him to run.
The conservatives were united behind Ellison up to this point.
I also understood that at a meeting of the conservative bloc
prior to the caucus meeting, the two Johns – Ellison and Hambrick – left the
room to “work it out” as to who would be the Speaker-designate representing the
conservatives, and that Mr. Ellison graciously decided to step aside.
Turns out, that’s not exactly what happened. That’s the part I got wrong.
What learned this morning after Hambrick’s claim on the
radio is that Hambrick had actually gone to a meeting of the moderate bloc prior to the meeting with the
conservative bloc and promised his vote to Anderson. And that’s why Anderson was reportedly so
shocked and angry when he was informed that Hambrick had the 13 votes to be
Speaker instead of Anderson.
It appears Hambrick double-crossed Anderson!
Wait, it gets worse.
Indeed, multiple people who were in attendance at the
conservative bloc meeting have now confirmed to me that Hambrick went into that
meeting and issued an ultimatum: Either you make me the Speaker-designee
instead of Ellison, or I’m voting for Anderson.
Holy rat-fink, Batman!
So the conservatives had no choice. It was either vote for
Hambrick and roll the dice that he’d be supportive of them…or Anderson, who
everyone knew was a tool for the governor’s agenda, including the coming
billion dollar tax hike.
So Hambrick’s statement that he “never asked for this job”
is only accurate in the sense that he didn’t “ask” for it; he demanded it!
It also now appears that Hambrick is trying to make up to
Anderson for double-crossing him by booting Fiore out of the Majority Leader’s
position and installing Anderson in an effort to keep Anderson from using the “nuclear
option” to oust Hambrick on opening day of the Legislature on February 2nd.
Unbelievably, Hambrick’s interview actually went downhill
from there…
WOULD YOU LIKE SOME WAFFLES WITH YOUR TAX PLEDGE?
Stock went on to challenge Hambrick’s claim that he removed
Majority Leader Fiore from the Taxation Committee because of the controversy
surrounding some tax liens that have been filed against two of her businesses.
He asked why over the weekend Hambrick dumped two Tax Pledge
signers – Assemblywoman Victoria Seaman
and Assemblyman Brent Jones – from the
Taxation Committee since they had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the
controversies surrounding Fiore.
Hambrick stammered and stuttered and danced around the
question – saying the pair had been put on other important committees, but
never answered the direct question with a direct answer. As Steve Sebelius of the Las Vegas Review-Journal
live-tweeted…
Instead, Hambrick said that he was a signer of the Tax
Pledge himself while neglecting to mention that he said in a TV interview two
weeks ago that he intended to break his Tax Pledge and suffer the consequences
in order to support the governor’s tax hikes and higher spending on public
education.
So is he going to honor his Tax Pledge or isn’t he? Only his hairdresser knows for sure!
THE ROOKIE
Hambrick then was asked about replacing Fiore as Taxation
chair with freshman Assemblyman Derek
Armstrong, who has not signed the Tax Pledge and has absolutely no legislative
experience whatsoever.
Hambrick said the Tax Pledge “was not a litmus test for me”
and then declared that the new vice-chair of the Taxation Committee,
Assemblyman Randy “Kirner Tax” Kirner
(RINO-Kirner Tax) had plenty of experience and would be there to help the
rookie out.
Which leads to the obvious question: Why not just make
Kirner the chairman and appoint Armstrong as vice-chair? Getting it backwards sounds like really,
really, really bad judgment to me.
Stock then asked Hambrick about the “sunsets” – a package of
some $620 million worth of “temporary” tax hikes that were supposed to expire
in both 2011 and 2013 but were extended by Gov. Brian Sandoval. When asked
if he’d support yet another extension of the sunsets, Hambrick deflected…
Spoken like a true Tower of Jello.
The conversation on taxes continued, and Hambrick waffled
yet again. After reminding people that
he did, indeed, sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, he declared, on air, that
he intended to honor it “by and large.”
Men, do me a favor.
Ask your wife if it’s OK for you to honor your marriage vows “by and
large” and let me know how that turns out for you.
I swear, I’ll bet Hambrick has trouble in the morning making
a decision on whether to wear his black socks or his black socks…and switches
back and forth seven times before putting his shoes on!
RULES? WE DON’T
NEED NO STINKIN’ RULES!
Now before we get to the real meat of the interview and the
explosive revelations therein, let’s address what came up towards the end of
the discussion; the fact that Hambrick admitted that he removed Fiore from her
Majority Leader position…
a.) Without consulting with the members of his caucus
Things got a little confusing when a caller asked about
Hambrick’s authority to remove Fiore from her leadership post as both Majority
Leader and Chairman of the Taxation Committee.
Hambrick, not surprisingly, wasn’t answering the question forthrightly,
so I texted Stock this message…
So when they came back on the air, Stock asked that exact
question. Under what authority did
Hambrick unilaterally remove Fiore from her ELECTED Majority Leader position. To which Hambrick’s response was essentially…
“Doh!”
Hambrick said he was seeking legal opinions on whether or
not he had the power to do what he did. Which, of course, raises the question
as to why he didn’t get such a legal opinion BEFORE he made his announcement?
In fact, inquiries have been made to the Legislative Counsel
Bureau, which oversees legislative affairs, and I’m told that LCB’s position is
that there is no law granting Hambrick such authority; that it’s an issue to be
resolved internally based on caucus rules.
Which Hambrick admitted on-air he didn’t know and hadn’t
read before announcing his decision.
“Greg” wrote me about Hambrick’s ridiculous response to the “by
what authority?” question…
Boy, are we ever!
The bottom line is this: Since Hambrick can’t produce any
back-up giving him the authority to unilaterally overrule an election by caucus
members, Fiore remains the duly-elected Majority Leader unless or until such
time as the caucus MEMBERS, not Hambrick, collectively un-elect her.
SLANDER, BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION…OH, MY!
Now this next part is the truly explosive part…
I first heard about this last week but couldn’t confirm it. However, in today’s interview Hambrick himself
revealed that he removed Majority Leader Fiore because he was being blackmailed…maybe,
if not probably, by his own political consultant!
First Hambrick attempted to duck questions from Stock by
claiming that Majority Leader Fiore had threatened to sue him over her removal as
Chair of the Taxation Committee. As
such, Hambrick claimed he couldn’t be forthcoming in his answers out of fear of
legal ramifications.
So I immediately called Fiore and asked if it was true that
she had threatened, or was even considering such a lawsuit. She told me, in no uncertain terms, that she absolutely,
positively never even remotely suggested that she was considering any such
thing, nor had she ever even thought about it.
So yet another bald-faced whopper by Hambrick. Looks like the man is gonna be spending a lot
of time in the confessional booth on Christmas Eve.
But that wasn’t the explosive part. This was…
Hambrick disclosed that as a result of some accusations that
Fiore made last week relating to a pair of political consultants – Cory Christensen and Nathan Emens – that one of them was threatening
to sue Fiore for allegedly damaging his reputation and harming his ability to
get business in the future.
But what I heard as a rumor last week relating to that
threat was confirmed by Hambrick today.
Whichever consultant it was, I was told he threatened to sue
ALL the members of the caucus, not just Fiore, unless Fiore was canned. Indeed, that’s exactly what Hambrick said on
the air today…
In other words, whichever political consultant it was, Hambrick
said today the consultant blackmailed Hambrick into removing Fiore in order for
Hambrick to avoid having all his caucus members sued. Which raises two questions…
I’m guessing the answer to the second question will answer
the first.
OUCH!
Christensen was hired as a political consultant to the
Republican Assembly Caucus last year. He’s
Anderson’s guy. And he was already out
of the picture before Fiore’s comments.
In fact, he was fired by a majority vote of the caucus
members shortly after the elections were over thanks, at least in part, to his
support in GOP primaries of moderate GOP candidates against conservative GOP candidates
who ended up winning in the general anyway.
So nothing Fiore said about Christensen was either slanderous
or untue. As such, it’s highly unlikely
that he’s the one who blackmailed Hambrick.
If I’m wrong, then all Hambrick has to do is say it was, in fact,
Christensen and not Emens who blackmailed him and I will stand corrected.
But here’s why I believe Emens is really the blackmailer…
First, Emens is Hambrick’s guy. He’s been Hambrick’s political consultant
from the beginning and it’s far more likely that Emens and Hambrick would have
talked about Fiore’s accusations than Hambrick and Christensen.
Secondly, Emens threatened Fiore almost immediately after
Fiore’s radio interview on Stock’s program last Tuesday. In case you can’t read the image below, at
8:51 a.m. Emens tweeted: “Fiore will be saying ouch soon!!!!”
And the very next day Hambrick ousted Fiore as chairman of
the Taxation Committee!
Coincidence?
Yeah, right. If you
believe that I have a Tax Pledge signed by Sen. Moderate Mike Roberson I want to sell you!
SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY
Whether Emens is the blackmailer or not, there’s still
another problem with him.
Emens got paid a lot of money this last election cycle
working for the Republican Assembly Caucus and continues to be Hambrick’s consigliere. So if it was discovered that Emens was
simultaneously working for the other team – meaning the Democrats, not the
moderate Republicans – that would be a HUGE problem, right?
And although there’s some dispute as to whether or not Fiore
used the term “criminal conspiracy” when referring to Emens in her interview –
and I’m trying to get a transcript to confirm – what Fiore tells me she was
referring to was whether or not it was just an ethical breach to work for both
sides or, as in the case of realtors and attorneys and such, a criminal act to
work for opposing players at the same time.
So let’s start with this…
When I visited www.NathanEmens.com
this morning, I read on the website that…
I guess it all depends on your definition of “skilled,” but
I digress.
Also, Nathan’s claim that he “is the ONLY consultant to
successfully flip a seat in the Nevada Assembly from Democrat to Republican in
more than a decade” is demonstrably not true.
By my count, there were around 10 seats in the Assembly that went from D
to R this year, and Nathan had nothing to do with any of them. But again, I digress.
Anyway, I then went to the website for Campaign Data
Solutions and read…
Believe me, that’s an important part of this story, so keep
it in mind for later on.
As everyone in the “biz” knows, Nathan holds himself out to
be a Republican political consultant. And indeed he has been handsomely
rewarded by Republicans. Not only has he
been paid thousands of dollars directly by Hambrick, here’s a cursory look at
other lucre he raked in from GOP organizations in 2014…
Nice fat checks, all. But get this…
He also received $14,494.77 from Assemblyman James Ohrenshall.
Who happens to be a…DEMOCRAT.
So while all those Republican organizations and grassroots
activists were busting their humps to elect more Republicans to the Assembly,
Emens pocketed almost $15K for a member of the opposing team.
And that’s part of what Fiore was talking about. That, and this…
PERMIT #2917
In reviewing the campaign finance reports of the Democrat
candidate for Assembly District 34 this year, Meghan Smith, it’s interesting to
see they do NOT include Campaign Data Solutions, Emens’ company. Indeed, there are thousands of dollars
included on her campaign finance report for “USPS” – the United States Postal
Service. But no mention of Nathan Emens
or Campaign Data Solutions.
Why do I bring that up?
Because of this mailer Smith sent out during the general
election campaign against conservative Tax Pledge signer and Republican candidate
for District 34, Victoria Seaman…
Note the “US Postage PAID” permit number. “Permit No. 2917.”
I’ve now had two different people tell me they checked with
the post office and the owner of that permit number is…
CAMPAIGN DATA SOLUTIONS!
Now riddle me this, Batman…
Why would Nathan Emens…
Who brags of owning “the only Nevada based consulting firm
with in-house printing and mailing facilities”…
And who was paid all that money to elect Republicans to the
Assembly this year…
Have the postal permit number of his political consulting
firm…
Imprinted on a mailer for a Democrat Assembly candidate
running against a Republican Assembly candidate?
I can’t WAIT to hear Li’l Nate’s explanation for THIS!
Now let me be clear.
I haven’t personally verified if this permit number does, in fact,
belong to Campaign Data Solutions. It
was confirmed to me by two individuals who are both reliable and
trustworthy.
But if a mistake has been made and this is not Nathan’s permit
number, I will be happy to correct the record and offer a sincere apology.
But in following the example that has now been set for
Majority Leader Fiore and her tax liens, let’s just assume he’s guilty until he
proves he’s innocent.
And since this is what Fiore was referring to as it relates to
unethical, and possibly criminal acts (though I sincerely doubt that there’s a
law in Nevada criminalizing unethical behavior by political consultants!),
Emens’ alleged lawsuit threat and possible blackmail simply have no substance.
RESIGN OR RECALL
As if we didn’t already know this before today’s disastrous
interview, but John Hambrick doesn’t have what it takes to be Speaker. He’s indecisive. He’s untrustworthy. He’s uninformed. His word is now meaningless. And he possesses all the political acumen of
Mark SureWould and the Geico gecko.
I sent John an email yesterday morning that asked: “So are
you going to resign or do we have to do this the hard way?”
I’ll wait until after Christmas Day to see if he does the
right thing and steps down.
If not, trust me…
Plans for a recall are already in motion.
I already bought www.RecallHambrick.com.
So sit tight and stay tuned.
FAMOUS LAST WORDS
“Dear John Hambrick.
You have divided the caucus even further with your latest ill advised
moves. Even though you may not have
started this boat rocking you have nearly sank it. I, regrettably, no longer trust your leadership
and think that you need to step down as Speaker elect.” - Dean Meeks of Tea Party Nevada
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE
Silver State
Confidential is an email newsletter on Nevada politics, public policy and
current events published (usually) daily by Chuck Muth, Nevada's #1 Renegade
Conservative and the man voted "Most Likely to Irritate Liberals!" Click on the link below for subscription
information…
 |
No comments:
Post a Comment