[sonnyblarney]

I'm not pitting two people against one another - I'm indicating the sad hypocrisy on the part of all of you arguing corruption here.

The indication is that because he was part of a private non-profit - is that there is some kind of inherent shadiness - which is wrong.

The radical partisanship here has thrown all of the otherwise great debaters on here into a hissy fit.

There is no story.

He was part of an advocacy group from years ago - it likely has nothing to do with anything.

He could have been a private lawyer, or worked at any other private firm and it would indicate the same degree of ostensible corruption.