My question --- If cash was "funneled" to the then-Senator's pocket, was it a pocket in a suit Kazeminy bought for him?
Here's the word cloud header that a FireFox add-in utility [Search Cloudlet] generates, for this Google:
My biggest hoot from all this, was over this quote from Strib:
Doug Kelley, Norm Coleman's attorney, said Wednesday that no matter how much money Deep Marine paid to Hays, "I can assure you that not a penny found its way to Laurie Coleman or Senator Norm Coleman. Period. End of story.''
Hays' attorney, Doug Peterson, said he hadn't seen the transcript of Thomas' deposition and couldn't comment. Hays hasn't disputed that it received $75,000 under a consulting contract with Deep Marine. But the company has previously insisted none of the money went to the Colemans.
Talk about obfuscation and dissembling over detail - hey, I can assure you Bernie M. never ran a Ponzi scheme, indeed I can assure you Ponzi never did either.
The thing I'd have enjoyed seeing the Coleman attorney, Doug Kelly, say without parsing out key words, "Based on diligent personal and reliable studying of evidence I have reviewed, I can honestly assure you that ...". Any thoughts about why it was not that way? If this Kelly guy relied only on what the Colemans, having clear motive to falsify in their favor if the assurance was a false one, said to Kelly without any due diligence review of accounts and documents, well, my assurances about Bernie and Ponzi were not offered as informed assurances, nor honest assurances, only as believe-it-or-not empty statements - which I do not even believe.
That "I can assure you ..." stuff does not cut it.
And if the dude has testimonial knowledge beyond hearsay, being a participant at the time or from some other activities, then he should be a witness and not represent anyone's interest. If all he's got is arguably self-serving hearsay of someone paying him cash to advance his interests, well, that's deficient, isn't it?
Then the Hays lawyer, another Doug, they proliferate, and this Doug says Hays got the $75,000 but none went to the Colemans. He says. A statement offered without any presentation of readily available documentation contemporaneous to the dealings and showing what money went to the Colemans' benefit, when, in what amount(s). As if dollar bills are not fungible - none of that money etc. It wholly begs the question, and rather than assuring me, it leaves an empty, unsatisfied taste. A half empty glass of an assurance, to me.
NOTE: IF ANY READER KNOWS OF AN ONLINE COPY OF THE B.J. THOMAS DEPOSITION, POSTED ANYWHERE, PLEASE GIVE A LINK IN A COMMENT OR BY EMAIL [SEE SIDEBAR GMAIL ADDRESS].
Worth a special notice, because if its links and the comments, MnPublius, on the latest Coleman-Kazeminy-cash&suits situation, here.
Further update: Pioneer Press, via Political Animal, has made the depo transcript available online, here.