More Delgaudio Stench

By Loudoun Insider

Excellent post at Real Advocate about Delgaudio steering county printing work to campaign contributors.  Disgusting.  Can’t wait for the next “investigation”.


Comments

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    From the Realloudoun blog post:

    “Back in March, Mateer sent her complaint to York. The public and the rest of the Board except for Vice Chairman Janet Clarke (R-Blue Ridge) knew nothing about it.”

    And she, just like York, sat on the information. I knew there was a stench about her as well. Mark my words, this woman can not be trusted.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    Reread my post. Point of clarification – in case it is not obvious the woman who is once again demonstrating she can not be trusted is Clarke. Did she not have an equal duty as York to come forth publically with the information about the complaint and ensure York turned over ALL the relevant information to the first “investigator”? Is she not equally culpable as York in their attempted coverup?

  • BlackOut says:

    Eric, hidden from that comment was the role Delgaudio played in the cover-up. You can’t tell me York didn’t take the issue to Delgaudio and talk to him about it back in March. Delgaudio helped orchestrate the secret non-action action. I’ll put pancakes on it.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    BO, That is probably true and (ironically) somewhat understandable (at least that Delgaudio would try to manage the situation) but Clarke actively (or is it passively?) particapated with York’s coverup and that appears to be well documented.

  • BlackOut says:

    Adding to the absurdity of this situation, word has it that Whitbeck has been in the fray and has been muzzling anyone and everything that tries to bring some sort of smack down on Delgaudio.

    Isn’t that special the 10th district GOP chair putting party over ethics and honor. Wrong priorities there Whitbeck. On so many levels.

  • John Marsh says:

    While we’re focused on the outrageous failures of our Chairman York and Blue Ridge Supervisor Clark, it’s useful to consider Realloudoun’s kind critique of TC’s accolade to Supervisor Williams for his merely upholding the most minimal ethical standards. We’ve set a mighty low bar for performance by our political “leaders.”
    http://realloudoun.com/2012/11/19/chairman-yorks-obstruction-of-justice/

  • liz says:

    I’m very impressed by the work done by my partners on RAPAC.

    Pay for play is an old and often heard tune in local goverment, but it’s also a crime.

  • liz says:

    I mean Mr. Delgaudio has committed a crime. The printers have done nothing wrong as far as I know.

  • BlackOut says:

    John, I am still on William’ side on this. He’s the only supervisor to come out publicly with criticism and action towards Delgaudio. This being done relatively shortly after he found out and it appears he took his duties seriously by personally looking into the matter. He’s on solid ground and should provide an example to York on what York should have done six months ago.

    I am more disturbed with the silence of the other board members. Who are they siding with, York or Williams? Once Delgaudio is found to have used his office for personal gain there is going to be an accounting. Williams so far is the only one that put honor and ethics over party loyalties. He’s got his priorities straight. The other Board members need to step out soon before being labeled as protecting party over ethics.

  • Shiloh says:

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: To not turn over documents or evidence pertaining to a case to prosecutors is plainly obstruction of justice. Even if it turns out that no crime has been committed, the withholding of evidence is still obstruction of justice. No “ifs”, “ands”, or “buts” about it. It would be so terribly ironic if Delgaudio were eventually cleared but York and Clarke were charged with and found guilty of obstruction of justice. Ah, how the Gods of Justice work!

  • David Dickinson says:

    “Pay for play is an old and often heard tune in local goverment, but it’s also a crime.”

    Please inform your husband:

    David Dickinson: “Money is in politics to make more money. When you bite the hand that feeds, you get sued.”

    Stevens Miller: “Mr. Dickinson, we don’t all share you cynical view, even if some money flows for the sake of the donors’ wallets.”

    http://www.leesburgtoday.com/news/extortion-openband-files-m-lawsuit-against-county-supervisors-hoas/article_c5dbe2a6-12d4-11e2-b026-0019bb2963f4.html?TNNoMobile

  • liz says:

    Mr. Dickinson, if you do not know the difference between

    a) donating to someone because you hope they will vote a certain way (such as donating to people who say that they are against monopolies because you hate monopolies too, and lo, they vote against a monopoly)

    and

    b) sending government contracts to a company after they’ve donated to you.

    then you are either willfully ignorant or amazingly stupid. And I don’t think you’re stupid.

    The simpler explanation is that you DO know the difference, but you’re hoping that others don’t.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Except, that isn’t what your husband said or implied. He said:

    “even if some money flows for the sake of the donors’ wallets.”

    “For the sake of the donors’ wallets” sounds like personal gain to me.

    It makes me wonder who benefited from Stevens Miller’s time on the Board???

  • John Marsh says:

    Liz’s point is well taken.

    And BlackOut, you’re absolutely right to support Williams’ position; it’s the honorable one that shamefully stands alone. It should be the least one should expect from a supervisor, and yet it’s unique!

    Let’s see if he goes on to support the Board’s adoption of a code of ethics that York has found so irrelevant.

  • A.E. Gnat says:

    DD… this isn’t rocket science.

    Money flows from the sake of the donors’ wallets because the donors hope that they will personally gain from it. Is the sentence really that difficult to understand? Of course corporations and entities donate money to political causes in the hopes they will get something in return.

    And when they donate to Delgaudio, they get it!!

  • David Dickinson says:

    And apparently when they donated to Stevens Miller’s campaign too.

  • BlackOut says:

    DD, this isn’t about Stevens or the Millers for that matter.

    Focus! Focus!

  • David Dickinson says:

    I wouldn’t have mentioned it if Ms. Miller hadn’t brought up, “Pay for play is an old and often heard tune in local goverment, but it’s also a crime.” and it reminded me of my previous conversation with Mr. Miller and his statements on it.

  • Baron Rosedown says:

    What I don’t understand is how Ms. Mateer, who has been reported as a “part-time” staffer, received unemployment benefits. It’s not a lot of money, slightly under $900.

    And I am not defending Delgaudio, but looking at his budget, you can clearly see several “payouts” to Virginia Employment Commission for DMateer & KBrooke (County FAMIS Code 5111):

    4/2012 – $157 & 7/2012 – $798 – DMateer

    8/2011- $2,011.88 & 10/2011$1,547.80 – KBrooke

  • David Dickinson says:

    Actually, I think this could be called, “More Miller Stench.” And the stench I smell is hypocrisy.

    Millers say, “even if some money flows for the sake of the donors’ wallets”… but then critique the same.

    Millers say, what a horrible abuse of an aide this was…but did nothing when worse happened to aides when Miller was a Board member.

    Millers say, Delgaudio uses his PAC to scare people to funnel money for political advange…and then form a PAC to do the same.

    Now that I think about it, this story really is all about the Millers. All-Miller, all the time. It is like a marketing campaign to give the Millers exposure for Stevens Miller’s delusions of grandeur and running for … something.

  • John Marsh says:

    With all due respect, this message from DD — “he did it too so it’s not wrong” or whatever — reveals the off-track irrelevancy that so detracts from TC’s potential value. Sure the off-topic points might make sense, somewhere, but they lead no where, and most often to some no-doubt personally-gratifying indulgence in personal attacks that so diminishes contemporary “debate.” No doubt I’ve been off point too. But it’s worth keeping BlackOut’s admonition to “focus.”

  • liz says:

    David, when my husband said that he was, as you well know, talking about the costs that the Southern Walk and Lansdowne Homeowners currently pay for substandard service to a monopoly. They were hoping to end having to pay for that and thus get the money back into their pockets.

    In that instance, Delgaudio thought it perfectly appropriate for the homeowners to pay even more to get service from a different provider when they were contracted to pay OpenBand — who was not actually providing service.

    Delgaudio, who says he’s a fiscal conservative, seems to have no problem spending other people’s money when it comes to paying back his donors — like Open Band.

    My husband has never spent a dime of county money to benefit his donors.

    We have firm proof that Delgaudio has done just that.

  • Jonathan Weintraub says:

    Let me try.

    Lockheed Martin has a PAC. The PAC donates to congressmen and senators who support a robust defense budget. A robust defense budget means more $ to major defense contractors like Lockheed Martin.

    p.s. – the above content is really about me. Me, me, me because I’m delusional. It has nothing to do with PACs, lobbying or national defense.

  • David Dickinson says:

    If either did it, it is wrong.

    Let’s get real for a minute. This all has to do with Delguadio’s stance against homosexuality. If Public Advocate didn’t exist, neither the Millers nor the Weintraubs would give a rat’s patootie what Delguadio did or did not do.

    We have Equality Loudoun’s communal bloodlust for Delgaudio being morphed into finding anything that could possibly used to demean or diescredit him.

    This is another hit job by the homo-fascists.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “Actually, I think this could be called, “More Miller Stench.” And the stench I smell is hypocrisy.”

    Of course, the claim of another person’s hypocrisy is not an acceptable excuse for one’s own actions, I would say.

  • Loudoun Moron says:

    This DD guy is almost as distracting as, well, double Ds

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “…neither the Millers nor the Weintraubs would give a rat’s patootie what Delguadio did or did not do.”

    Similarly, the motivation of one’s accusers are also no excuse for one’s own actions. Wouldn’t you say, David?

  • liz says:

    David D, you know what? It’s not just that he’s hateful, it’s that he’s dishonest.

    Bob Marshall is also hateful, but he keeps his nose completely clean, and acts as delegate in a manner which he thinks serves his constituency. I happen to disagree with him, but I respect the fact that even though I think he’s a misogynist and a bigot, he’s at least sincere in his adherence to what he sees as his public duty.

    Delgaudio is a liar and a cheat and a thief. He’s stealing YOUR money, David D. He’s handing government money over to his donors at YOUR expense. And he thinks he can get away with it.

    It’s true that we wouldn’t have found out that he was doing it if he weren’t a hate-monger, but we looked through the records and there it was. We couldn’t have found it if he hadn’t done it.

    And you should be incensed that he did it, if you are even slightly sincere about being a fiscal conservative, or for law and order, or against corruption.

  • David says:

    We also have firm proof that the sorting of people into, literally, “friends” and “enemies” lists is standard procedure in Delgaudio’s office. There isn’t even the pretense of representing the constituents of Sterling, only those who are, and I quote, “team players.” There is so much more to come, and it’s impossible to believe that Mr. York and Ms. Clarke were unaware of this, as the except from Ms. Mateer’s complaint makes clear. Constituent needs were actually routed through York’s office because Delgaudio wouldn’t allow his aides to attend to them. Unless they were “team players,” of course.

    My assessment of DD is different from yours, Liz. I think he actually can’t see the difference between what Stevens was referring to and the actual pay-for-play we are discussing here, and has no desire to engage his brain. He’s like a broken record and should just be ignored. He has nothing of value to contribute.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Yes, Eric, I agree.

    As I stated weeks ago, things should be investigated (and they are) and if wrongdoing was done, it should be corrected/punished.

    But all of you jeering Delgaudio are completely looking past the fact that the Miller’s PAC was created explicitly to get rid of politicians that oppose homosexuality. They are looking for reasons to get rid of politicians not based on their fitness for service or any other criteria…just on their own view of how the world should be.

    You should keep that in your mind when someone with such a strongly stated agenda brings forth an accusation.

  • David says:

    Oh, of course. Personal attacks. Also standard procedure for DD everywhere he comments.

  • David Dickinson says:

    “Bob Marshall is also hateful”

    That shows your utter disconnect from reality. He is a good and kind man.

  • liz says:

    Good and kind to you, not so much to me.

    But that is beside the point. He’s also honest. Which Delgaudio is not. Delgaudio is picking your pocket, DD.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “As I stated weeks ago, things should be investigated (and they are) and if wrongdoing was done, it should be corrected/punished.”

    Unfortunately, now the handling of teh investigation needs to be investigated.

    “But all of you jeering Delgaudio are completely looking past the fact that the Miller’s PAC was created explicitly to get rid of politicians that oppose homosexuality.”

    Yes, we are. They are very open about their motivations but as I stated above the messenger in this case is hardly relevant.

  • David Dickinson says:

    “Yes, we are. They are very open about their motivations but as I stated above the messenger in this case is hardly relevant.”

    I hope Delgaudio never jaywalks. I’m sure you’ll be there to catch that too.

  • David Dickinson says:

    ven·det·ta
    noun \ven-ˈde-tə\

    1: blood feud

    2: an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts or exchange of such acts

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    DD, I do agree a bit with you in this regard. The motivation of the Miller and Weintraub’s PAC is specfically against those who are anti-homosexual. Because they are so focussed on Delgaudio and York and Clarke are not vocally anti-homosexuals, they are not as interested in the plain old garden variety corruption and coverup these two BOS members look to be involved in. I would prefer an equal effort be put forth for all of the corrupt BOS members and the laser focus on the one “hateful” one be widened.

  • BlackOut says:

    DD and Liz, might this discuss best be served over at:

    http://www.realadvocate.org/blog0/donate-to-my-campaign-and-ill-award-you-a-government-contract/

    DD, it’s easy to get a motive to divert attention away from Delgaudio by talking about everything but…

    And now we’re down to who started the diversion. Wow, a diversion from the diversion.

    But, congratulations we’re now over 30 comments are over half of them have nothing to do with Delgaudio. Tough position to hold when the only defense is completely unrelated to the action on the ground.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “I hope Delgaudio never jaywalks. I’m sure you’ll be there to catch that too.”

    What is being claimed is not a jaywalking-type offense, DD.

  • BlackOut says:

    Let me put it this way.

    Take the RAPAC out of the equation entirely. And we still would be looking at issues with Delgaudio et al. They aren’t the reason Delgaudio et al are in trouble. Revelations are coming from multiple sources.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    So “hate” then – just to be clear – means what exactly these days?

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    I think it has the same definition as obscenity, Joe.

  • David, FYI, anybody who holds views not in agreement with those of Liz is “hateful”. I am hateful, you are hateful, along with half our fellow citizens. Liz is good, you are evil. They won, you lost, shut up.

  • Ravi Oli says:

    Mr. Quotable Joe:

    Hate means:

    verb. detest – abhor – loathe – abominate – execrate – dislike
    noun. hatred – odium – abhorrence – detestation – loathing

    For you, Mr. Joe, Ravi will use it in a sentence, as follows:

    “Ravi hates that David Dickinson would delude himself into thinking that Bob Marshall is “a good and kind man.” Bob Marshall is a strange man who has more in common with a leguminous plant than he does with most of his constituents.

    Ravi believes that all efforts to expose this Eugene Delgaudio are to be stoked. Ravi senses a pre-holiday Delgaudio frenzy.

  • liz says:

    Awww…TBP. I didn’t know you cared. That’s so sweet!

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    Ravi, thank you, I just wanted to make sure we are still rolling with the generic definition here. I get confused sometimes when the term is slathered around like chutney on my naan.

    So Liz is hateful, Bob is hateful, Jonathan is hateful, you are hateful, David D. is hateful … We are all hateful here on this blog, just as we all depend on water as the aforementioned leguminous plants depend on water, of which I am surprised to learn Bob Marshall needs more than do his constituents.

    But Bob Marshall is a wise and healthy man, so who among us should be surprised that he hydrates so magnificently?

  • I don’t know Joe. I documented the last conversation I had with the leguminous representative. Take a look.

    Whose behavior best fits that word that nobody (except Ravi-Dictionary-Oli) seems to know what it means?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Liz, the only issue I would take re your husband and his time on the BoS was the issue of the Lambert property, where a well connected Dem who did not represent either the property owner or the county tried to broker a deal with his assistance to gain a supposed school site, so that the Dem in question could make a commission on a $2M secondary sale to the person they DID represent, for a non-permitted use, or as she put it at the public hearing, “buy the property for $14M, and sell a portion to my client for $2M”. Your husband was not empowered to speak for either the BoS or the school board on that one, but it got traction just the same.

    Before anyone starts down the “false equivalencies” braying, I’m not saying what your husband did in that case makes anything that may eventually be found to be wrong here okay, simply that he really doesn’t have a lot of wiggle room to preach moral authority, at least in the portions of his former district which suffered through some atrocious school overcrowding for the sake of the attempt to get a fellow Dem a nice real estate commission, while “fixing” something.

    (p.s.–English is a living language, so yes, to 51% of the population, “disagree” = “hate speech”.)

  • BlackOut says:

    Oh geez, now the diversion is going back in time to the Lambert property.

  • David Dickinson says:

    I did not mean to hijack the post, only to shine light on the Millers’ hypocricy (after Liz threw out the “pay to play” which I already went back and forth on with Stevens) and the absurdity that the Equality Loudoun lynch mob is in this for something good and noble.

Leave Comment