McCain’s Cronies: Trouble In Paradise For Rick Davis? Conflict Or Gag Order?
…Rick Davis–under the spotlight because of his work for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–is skipping a Wednesday lunch with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.
On Tuesday, word came that McCain political director Mike DuHaime will substitute for Davis because he is "heading out on the trail" today.
"Heading out on the trail"? Is that what they call "getting reamed out in person for publicly lying and getting caught" these days?
Since the McCain campaign official statement denies that Davis was "lobbying," perhaps McCain can explain why Freddie Mac agreed to monthly payments of $15,000 per invoice which Davis personally requested from them?
What exactly was Mr. Davis doing to earn this "fee?"
As Ben Smith points out, McCain issued a non-denial which fails to address "the $15,000 monthly payments from Freddie Mac, which began while Davis was still running the firm." Further, McCain fails to explain whether he knew about them, approved Davis’ role in securing them, and how that squares with McCain’s snippy call for reporters to look into Davis’ lobbying ties.
Worse, McCain fails to reconcile this with the memo Davis sent out to McCain’s campaign staff back in May which called for a re-vetting of McCain’s staff because of cronyism and self-dealing lobbying concerns which called for firing anyone who failed to disclose potential conflicts. Was there a re-vetting of Davis? Were these Freddie Mac payments not disclosed? If so, will Davis be fired?
Or, if McCain knew, what was his opinion of this influence buying payola? Because given Davis’ role as a named principal of Davis Manafort — yes, that’s his name first, and he’s only "on leave" from his lobbying firm — it’s inane to think a financial benefit doesn’t accrue for business Davis expressly solicited.
Further, perhaps McCain could kindly explain why he forked over $30,000 to Davis Manafort as of the April quarterly FEC filing.
I’ve asked several people with accounting backgrounds, and uniformly I’m told that the entity issuing the invoice is the one annotated for payment as the "payee," so that the "payor" (in this case, the McCain campaign itself) can keep a running track of who has requested payment and for what. Had it been a reimbursement voucher submitted by Davis, the annotation would have been to "Richard Davis," as every subsequent payee notation indicates.
So, why the anomalous payment to Davis Manafort? Inquiring minds and all that.