McCain hires lawyer to handle scandal that may or may not exist

Yesterday saw one of the more unusual campaign controversies of the season, leading to reports that John McCain has hired a high-profile defense attorney to defend himself against charges that haven’t even been made. Let’s unpack this a bit.

Drudge reported yesterday that the New York Times is poised to publish a “high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee.” McCain, Drudge said, is so worried about the looming report, that he’s been working behind the scenes, urging the NYT not to run the article. As proof, Drudge cited “newsroom insiders.” The headline read: “McCain Pleads with NYT to Spike Story.”

It’s hard to get too excited about an article that may or may not exist, so I ignored the rumor, figuring the article in question would either run or it wouldn’t. It’s especially easy to put the allegation aside when one remembers that Drudge has had an unhidden disdain for McCain for years.

But there very well may be more to this story than just a rumor on a gossip site.

On Thursday, John McCain responded to an unsubstantiated story on the Drudge Report that alleged his campaign was trying to convince The New York Times to spike a story on legislative favors for a lobbyist.

At a press conference in Detroit, McCain defended his record of integrity, while confirming that his staff has been in contact with the newspaper, according to The Associated Press. But, McCain said, “I have not been in talks with The New York Times.”

However, Politico has confirmed that McCain himself had one conversation with Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in which the senator expressed concerns with how the story was being reported.

And Washington power lawyer Bob Bennett has confirmed to Politico that he is providing counsel to McCain.

This is a little confusing. If there’s no controversy, McCain seems to be going to quite a bit of trouble over nothing … which makes it seem like there must be a real controversy.

Shortly after the Drudge story ran, the campaign issued a denial.

“It is unfortunate that rumor and gossip enter into political campaigns. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving this country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the important issues facing our country.”

Of course, that’s one of those odd denials that doesn’t deny anything. (It’s also odd that McCain’s campaign would insist that he’s “never” done favors for special interests given his role in the Keating 5 scandal.)

But the explanation took an even more surprising turn when we learned that a) McCain has contacted the NYT about a story; b) McCain personally confirmed that his staff has been in contact with the paper; and c) McCain has hired one of Washington’s most high-profile defense attorneys.

“What is being done to Sen. McCain is an outrage,” Bob Bennett said. “I have nothing further to say at this time.”

OK, but what’s being done to him?

What’s more, the WaPo reports that the lobbyist at issue in this yet-to-be-seen story has also hired her own defense attorney. (When principals start lawyering up, it usually piques reporters’ interest.)

At this late stage in the race, with McCain gaining in the polls, this probably isn’t what senator — whose campaign is premised almost entirely on his alleged integrity — had in mind.

CB (Steve)

As you often rally against the MSM manufacturing “stories” from unreliable sources and circumstantial evidence, I invite you to stick to the things you do best… dissecting actual news. If this is something substantial, you’ll know about it soon enough and can then provide us the blow-by-blow details as it unfolds.

Keep up the good work.

  • What Chrisbo said.

    A simple explanation for everything you described is that someone is set to slander McCain using the NYT and McCain realises that allegations in the NYT, no matter no how false they are proven later, could destroy what is left of his campaign. This is, after all, the man who got blasted by similar tactics in 2000. If that is the case, it makes sense for him to call the NYT and let them know that the trial will get really ugly if they knowingly publish slander. Similarly for the lawyering up.

    Now all of that could be bollocks. But all of it is pretty plausible and we will find out soon enough. Best wait and dissect news, not propoganda. There are plenty of reasons to dislike McCain without resorting to Drudge’s sleeze.

  • We could unpack this one step further, by asking why McCain feels the need to hire a high-profile “criminal” defense lawyer at this time. You don’t hire an attorney to do PR work—you hire a PR firm. You don’t hire a criminal-defense attorney for pushback work on civil matters, substantiated or not—you hire a proper litigation team.

    And you don’t deny having spoken with anyone at the Times, when you’ve just gotten off the phone with the “double-E” himself—unless McCain feels that one phone call is a singular issue, and “talks with the Times” is a plural issue. That would take “splitting hairs” to a whole new level—now wouldn’t it?

    This should begin to get interesting, once McCain’s people start scrambling to plug the leaks in the campaign dike….

  • Just as McCain starts to show some life in Iowa and New Hampshire, this is not what he needs to deal with.

  • I agree with all the wait to see the facts responses. If I had been swiftboated like McCain was in 2000, I would hire an attorney at the slightest rumor of an upcoming slander. If a Democrat did that, we would call it fighting back hard.

  • I might be willing to give McCain some benefit of the doubt if he hadn’t been such a perennial freaking douchebag about the Iraq war. And when he lies flat out by saying “I have not been in talks with The New York Timesā€ (when his staff had been in talks with the NYT) he opens himself up to a full examination of the charges which haven’t been substantiated yet.

  • Response to #1 and #2:

    CB did ignore the story when there was nothing to it except something on Drudge. But it’s legitimate news that McCain has “lawyered up,” especially hiring a big gun like Bob Bennett.

    Mr. Bennett is going to be busy. On Friday we learned that Bennett is also defending Jose Rodriguez, “the CIA’s ex-operations director who ordered the interrogation tapes destroyed in late 2005…”

  • Just a left-wing gossip because dems. know McCain will be them in the presidential race. How dispicable.

  • I’m sure he just shot HGH with Clemens. šŸ™‚

    If a Democrat did that, we would call it fighting back hard. -jen flowers

    Democrats don’t have an overarching pattern of corruption to color perception. Frankly, Republicans have done nothing in the last decade to earn the presumption of innocence from the court of public opinion.

    McCain himself has a colorful enough past to and he’s been caught in a lie here, so all the aspiring internet editors need to please stop telling Steve how to run his blog. If everyone ‘waited to see’ before posting anything then stories would never go anywhere. It’s not like Steve is bandying about vicious rumors about McCain, in fact, he laments the fact that what is going on is unknown and simply reports to us that something is, in fact, going on.

  • Best wait and dissect news, not propoganda. There are plenty of reasons to dislike McCain without resorting to Drudge’s sleeze.

    I agree, on both counts, but feel my post may have been misconstrued by some. Forget Drudge, whose rumors I ignore, and consider several confirmed facts:

    1. McCain has personally contacted the NYT executive editor about a still-unpublished article.

    2. McCain’s staff has also been in communication with the NYT about the same story.

    3. McCain hired one of DC’s highest-profile defense attorneys.

    4. The lobbyist in question has also hired a defense attorney.

    Given this, and the coverage in multiple MSM outlets, the story isn’t even worth a blog post? I feel like my description of the issue, based on the available facts, was more than fair.

  • The NYTimes article sounds like a hit job, especially considering that (according to the Washington Post) the Times didn’t even bother to interview McCain for the piece.

    It wouldn’t be their first hit job on a Republican. Good for McCain for going on the offensive.

  • Steve, there’s a typo (“executive order”) in point 1 of post #13. I’m glad Steve brought it up, I hadn’t heard about it at all prior to this and with all the lawyering up it sure looks like it could be a story.

    And are the people complaining here going to Drudge and making the same complaints? Just curious.

  • Steve, there’s a typo (ā€executive orderā€) in point 1 of post #13.

    Oops. It’s fixed. Thanks.

  • Nate-Iowa said:
    “Just a left-wing gossip because dems. know McCain will be them in the presidential race. How dispicable.”

    Since the Republican’ts all seem to agree with you Nate, I really don’t expect McCain to win the nomination. šŸ˜‰

    Nah, actually I do expect him to win the nomination. Huckabee can’t because the Prince of Darkness says he’s not a ‘real’ conservative. Romney is just a ken-doll. Rudy is a little facist joke and even Republican’ts are starting to see it. Fred too tired to work hard enough. Duncan is lower in the polls then Tom and Tom just dropped out. No one gives Alan (Keyes) a second thought, which says a lot about the ingrained racism of the Right in this country.

    As for Ron Paul, Republican’ts WANT to stick their noses into our private lives. There is no place for a libertarian in the modern GOP big-boys table, any more than there is for a Christian Evangelical. Republican’ts may not care what goes into our food, but they sure give a damn what happens in our bedrooms.

  • doubtful,

    During the 2004 I was so irate that John Kerry didn’t fight back at the slanderous accusations I get so irate that the Senate Democrats fold on everything. I want my side to fight back. If I want my side to do this, I can’t blame the other side for doing it or doing it better than our side has. McCain’s hiring an attorney and speaking to NYTimes folks are forceful acts, but if he’s heard something which isn’t right, what should he do? Wait to respond until after it’s published?

    My question is who initiated the talks? McCain’s office or the NYTimes to verify a story?

    Something doesn’t smell right, I agree, but until more comes out, this just seems like another instance of our side saying “gotcha” with inadequate information. Steve has every right to bring this to our attention, but I also have every right to say that it’s premature to make a judgement.

  • Just a left-wing gossip because dems. know McCain will be them in the presidential race. How dispicable.

    You know, the quality of trolls around here is really gone downhill.

    And I’m gonna have to stand up for CB here — he was very, very careful to note that this story appeared on Drudge, that Drudge hates McCain, and that the details are sketchy and this could all be nothing.

    He then posted facts straight from the McCain camp and other sources.

    Not sure why some think he’s joining in the rumor milling, since it seems he’s tried hard not to.

    Although I will say I’ve enjoyed watching the McCain Implosion Tour ’07 — they guy’s a mean-spirited snake-oil saleman who should only be allowed in the White House during visiting hours.

  • Poor little republicans,being the number one at smear,whoa,don’t anyone smear them,how dare they,lol….awwww,ha,ha,ha,McCain….

  • I think we all need a refresher on what how his wife stole the red cross oxi-contins and how he did her a favor by putting pressure on the prosecutor to get her a low ball charge, or something to that effect,
    ( Im going off mostly local hear say. )

  • “Democrats don’t have an overarching pattern of corruption to color perception.”

    True, but only for the last 7 years, for which they were totally gutless…*sigh*

    They won’t be really corrupt again until they take back power (WH, 2/3 majority)…. *sigh*.

    Honest progressive democrats make the best public servants, by far. It’s unfortunate that most of them, the ones with power anyway, keep getting killed. Geez, what are the odds for the disparage between ‘suspicious’ progressive deaths vs conservative ones in the last 40 years?

  • Uh oh, the NY Times has gone ahead and printed this story! It’s on the website now and will be in their paper tomorrow.

    VOTE Obama!

  • Comments are closed.