Tuesday, August 20, 2013

NY Post Report about FBI Recordings leads to an inescapable conclusion that Craig Eaton is NOT the GOP “Chairman #1 ” mentioned in the Federal Indictments concerning the Malcolm Smith Scandal --- and that Manhattan's GOP Chairman Dan Isaacs is the unamed co-conspirator described as " Chairman #1 "

One of  “Republicans for Change” key reasons to DUMP CRAIG  EATON as the Brooklyn GOP  Chairman is now out the window  —  What will Golden’s RFC operators come up with next to replace that high quality slime ?


According to an “EXCLUSIVE” report in the New York Post, “Manhattan Republican Party Chairman Dan Isaacs entertained a thinly disguised bribe offer from an undercover FBI agent posing as an associate of Democratic state Sen. Malcolm Smith, according to a transcript of taped conversations obtained by The Post. ***  The explosive exchange between Isaacs and the federal undercover — posing as a crooked real-estate developer — took place at a Feb. 14 luncheon in Midtown’s Sparks Steak House. ***  Isaacs has not been charged in the case....” (See “Manhattan GOP leader Isaacs caught on FBI tape entertaining $30G bribe from agent - pol whines 'I have never been charged' ” by Carl Campanile, 8/20/13, New York Post [http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/city_gop_big_shady_lunch_thkKOF1lrImWJVmn51AFSJ]). Also present at the shady luncheon was the Queens GOP Councilman Dan Halloran who had been indicted in connection with the Malcolm Smith matter.

Since it is now clear that "County Chairman #1" is Dan Isaacs, all speculation on that score concerning Brooklyn GOP Chairman Craig Eaton needs to cease. (It should be noted that when this story broke, and for some time thereafter, this blog openly speculated that the infamous "Chairman #1" had been Craig Eaton – and that it was logical to presume that he was.)  Eaton has consistently and repeatedly denied any involvement with any of the unlawful scheming to obtain a Wilson-Pakula authorization for Malcolm Smith to run on the GOP line for mayor.

Nonetheless, not very long ago, I had heard a couple of Marty Golden’s operatives, who now are active in “Republicans for Change,” mention that one of the reasons that Eaton had to go as the Brooklyn GOP leader was the likelihood that he was “Chairman #1 ”; with that now off the table, one awaits their next statement(s) about it and any  of the other reasons they had advanced to change the Republican county leadership.

10 comments:

  1. I wonder what Golden and his crew of losers will say or do next. They wrote a letter to the US Attorney, libeled, defamed and slandered Eaton - and like Eaton said all along, he had nothing to do with it......what a great lawsuit that would be against a sitting Senator. I heard that the little mice in Golden's office were scurrying around today, sweating, not knowing what to do...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BACKFILL: An April 10, 2013 letter to Hon. Preet Bharara, United States Attorney, Southern District of New York was “FROM THE DESK OF – Senator Martin J. Golden.” In that letter Golden seeks “the release of the name of County Chairman #1 described in sealed complaint....”

      At no point does State Senator Golden mention the name “Craig Eaton” or state that Craig Eaton might be “County Chairman #1”. The reporter who wrote the article that accompanied Golden’s letter, referred to as a “Document Drop”, Celeste Katz, makes clear that State Senator Golden was in the midst of a feud with Mr. Eaton and doubtless thought that Eaton would be disclosed as the infamous “Chairman #1 (See “Document Drop: Who's Chairman #1 ?” by Celeste Katz, 4/10/13, Daily News/Daily Politics [http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2013/04/document-drop-whos-chairman-1]).

      It isn’t clear how much of the letter was Golden’s personal feelings on the matter at that time, and how much might have been from a member of Golden’s staff, who had a clever plan afoot to inculpate and embarrass Eaton when he looked ready to take the fall.

      In any case, all that's changed now, hasn't it ?

      Delete
  2. Humbleness will always beat cocky ness

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now that we know who "County Chairman #1" is, we demand that the State Senate tell us who "Senator #1" is in the Tax Abatement scandal! How sweet it is.....

    ReplyDelete
  4. In the big picture, whats all the fuss about? Politicians looking for favors and trading patronage. Business as usual. Why is the US Attorney (Preet Bharra) a Schumer political appointee so interested in this? You call Marty Golden Gunga Din, Preet fits the bill in more ways than one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice one... and not too too racist either.... Almost like the good old days...

      Let's lift a pint and sing "On the Road to Mandalay" together. It's okay, it's based on Kipling's "Mandalay".... Remember, Kipling was enlightened for his time... something I don't think can be said for you, but what the ... we're among friends on this blog.

      And I do know that Mandalay is nowhere near where the Regimental Biisti Din, Din, Din toted water and tooted his horn, but when I'm sensing just a little racism it's "On the Road to Mandalay" that's about as far as I'm willing to play along. "...Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, Where there aren't no Ten Commandments, an' a man can raise a thirst..." Good times, good times...

      Delete
  5. Hmm let's see here the web grows bigger and bigger.

    We know NYC is Issacs and he is number Chairman 1

    We know the Bronx is out for he was caught red handed.

    We know the Queens player was caught and the Queens Chairman could be 2

    We know that Staten Island Chair resigned and could be cooperating with Preet.

    We now know Craig had nothing to do with anything and has been telling the truth all along.

    Any comments Gale

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obviously some people don't get it at all (See the comment of "Anonymous August 20, 2013 at 9:34 PM .... In the big picture, whats all the fuss about? ....").

    As to my commenting on your conclusion; since it's more or less what I writ in my original post, what more can I say ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Certain Democrats not interested in two party system

    ReplyDelete