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

  • Short-Sale LeTourneau says:

    Liz needs tread carefully. Her husband called the Chairman of the County a coward last week. And let’s not forget the 2010 threat Miller made from the dias to Delgaudio;

    …”You’ve made me mad before, but this is the first time I’ve done it on public record. Keep it up! Keep it up! You’ll regret it!”

    Exhibit A: (from TC’s own post in 2010)
    http://www.tooconservative.com/?p=7095

    Exhibit B: LTM 2010 story,
    http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/miller_blasts_delgaudio239/

    Exhibit C: Delgaudio is the Miller PAC’s only target.
    http://www.realadvocate.org/blog0/persons-of-interest/

    Delgaudio could file a defamation and slander suit against the Millers. The Miller’s PAC only has one target and that’s Delgaudio.

  • David says:

    Actually, the term “hate” in the current context has a very specific meaning.

    I know it’s fun – and distracting – to conflate similar sounding terms like “hater,” “hateful,” “hate crime,” “hate speech,” etc., etc., but I also assume that at least some of the readers of this blog are interested in a serious answer. The meaning of the term in this context is the one within the definition of “anti-gay hate group” as applied by the Southern Poverty Law Center to the 18 or 20 such groups it has identified. It is an explicitly behavioral definition, involving:

    “the propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling.”

    That describes the behavior of Mr. Delgaudio, and that is why he is currently a person of interest for RAPAC. If we were talking about a different kind of hate group the definition would change accordingly – but it would still be behavioral.

    I hope this clears it up for those who are actually interested.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    David and Barb,

    Once again supposed hypocrisy or motivation on the part of the accuser is not a mitigating factor for the accused.

    What might be your excuse for York and Clarke’s actions in attempting to coverup the incident? PEC is out to get the developers?

  • David Dickinson says:

    Last I checked, the SPLC doesn’t control the English language (although, I’m sure they would like to).

    Back to Joe’ point, “hate” is therefore defined just how you’d like it to be defined.

    How about some introspection? How do you not define what you are doing as hatred towards Delgaudio?

    hate
    noun, often attributive \ˈhāt\

    1 a: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
    b: extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing

  • David says:

    Actually, the term “hate” in the current context has a very specific meaning.

    I know it’s fun – and distracting – to conflate similar sounding terms like “hater,” “hateful,” “hate crime,” “hate speech,” etc., etc., but I also assume that at least some of the readers of this blog are interested in a serious answer. The meaning of the term in this context is the one within the definition of “anti-gay hate group” as applied by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It is an explicitly behavioral definition:

    “the propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling.”

    That describes the behavior of Mr. Delgaudio, and that is why he is currently a person of interest for RAPAC. If we were talking about a different kind of hate group the definition would change accordingly – but it would still be behavioral.

    I hope this clears it up for those who are actually interested.

  • A.E. Gnat says:

    When I think of “hate,” David, I think of, among other things, those who attempt to intimidate members of/incite violence towards members of some demographic.

    Rainbow-colored bloody doors come to mind.

    Wonder what the apologists would say to the blood being filled with crosses, or Stars of David.

  • David Dickinson says:

    “Once again supposed hypocrisy or motivation on the part of the accuser is not a mitigating factor for the accused.”

    Translation: we are liberals and we will do what we want to.

  • liz says:

    Please, DD, tell me what other term you would use for the deliberate funneling of government funds to a donor within a couple of months of their donation?

    And then switching the flow of those same government funds to a different – higher dollar – donor whose donation is more recent?

    You see, that’s what happened with Delgaudio. We can prove it happened.

    Barbara, the Lambert property? Really? It was cheaper than the one the schools were looking at, and closer to the families who were going to use it. And, as it happened, a totally DIFFERENT piece of land from either ended up being used and the kids are now all attending that new school happily while saving the tax payers money. The point of the Lambert property was that the schools were saying “This is the only piece of land left!!! We need to over pay for it!!!!” and Stevens proved them wrong. I know you’re still upset that your pet piece of land didn’t get used, but please come back to 2012.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    David, in what way does it matter ever IF David has a personal animosity to Eugene (who could blame him, anyway)? Again, it does not mitigate what was done nor the BOS coverup that ensued.

  • David Dickinson says:

    “Please, DD, tell me what other term you would use for the deliberate funneling of government funds to a donor within a couple of months of their donation?”

    I call it SOLYNDRA

  • BlackOut says:

    This thread has as much ADHD in it as a Delgaudio fundraising letter. Or his dances of defiance.

    Look! Over there a squirrel.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “Translation: we are liberals and we will do what we want to.”

    I have no personal hate for Delgaudio. I hear he can be very charming. But even if I did, would it in some way excuse his actions? You have a very strange way of assigning blame, David, warped in fact.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “I call it SOLYNDRA”

    Ok, so do you think it relevant to discuss the hatred some feel for Obama and his administration as a factor when evaluating the Solyndria issue? C’mon, David, …be honest now…

  • David says:

    AEG, I think it’s defined in a very narrow behavioral way for exactly that reason – the behavior of spreading known defamatory falsehoods about a group tends to incite violence against members of that group. Just holding a “viewpoint” doesn’t have that effect, so groups that just hold anti-gay views don’t qualify as hate groups. The rainbow blood image carries the meaning it does because of the context created by the one who used it, the intentional incitement of rage and fear with defamatory lies.

    In fact, the SPLC explicitly says that simply believing that being gay is “sinful,” for example, does not constitute hate. It’s all about the behavior, much to the chagrin of those who, like DD, desperately want to be called “haters” and then claim a silly false equivalence.

  • liz says:

    And, btw, RAPAC is completely willing to go after members of the KKK who might be in office in VA, or in fact anyone who uses the power of their office to bully or shame members of a group simply for having the inborn characteristics of that group.

  • Ravi Oli says:

    Ohhhh Noooo, Mr. Joe –

    Ravi is not hateful. Ravi loves all people – you – Mr. Stevens Miller – Mr. David Dickinson, and Mr. Bob Marshall.

    Ravi’s point about Mr. Marshall is that he is quite “nutty.”

    Believe it or not, Ravi also loves this Eugene Delgaudio. Do you not see how he has brought all of us together to “chat” on this lovely fall day?

    Mr. Dickinson says, “the absurdity that the Equality Loudoun lynch mob is in this for something good and noble.”

    Ravi says, “Slap my hand, right-wing, middle-aged, white man!” One man’s absurdity, is another man’s reality.

    Ravi goes on to say to Mr. Dickinson: If you know this Eugene…if you really, really know this Eugene, then you must know that being taken down by a mob of howling political enemies is his destiny. It is part of his inevitable fate.

    He will soon reap that which he has sown all these many years. You may protest, as is your right, but Ravi believes that this time Eugene is going down. Hard.

  • David Dickinson says:

    “the intentional incitement of rage and fear with defamatory lies”

    So, RAPAC will be protesting the atheists who put up Santa Skeleton on a crucifix?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    not a diversion BlackOut, and as I said, if something is found wrong here, then it’s wrong.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    So, David, a skeleton on a crucifix put up by a christian, does THAT now excuse Eugene’s abuse of office and miisuse of taxpayer dollars? Does it excuse York and Clarke retaining important documents and keeping them from the first attempt at investigating the incident? Does it allow Eugene to pick any ole cause he likes and use our tax dollars to fundraise for it?

  • David Dickinson says:

    To clear the air….

    1. I’m not (and have not been) apologizing for any of the allegations. I’ve said they need to be looked into and appropriate action taken.
    2. I am pointing out that RAPAC is a ad hominem hit squad and anything they say has to be taken with a (big) grain of salt.
    3. RAPAC is making this a bigger issue than it is. There are claims here that they know more damning things. Maybe you do. But, from what is out in the public domain, this is a medium-grade issue, not Armageddon.

  • David says:

    LOL. I wouldn’t ordinarily even respond to this sort of confused nonsense, but: How is the “Santa Skeleton” a defamatory lie about the members of a group of people?

    Yes, I understand that it upset some people. But a lot of things upset people. That isn’t the criterion.

    Besides which, as we’ve discussed several times, the young man who created that particular display is a Christian. The fact that his mom is an atheist doesn’t entitle you to decide that he must be one, too. That, in fact, could be characterized as a defamatory lie.

    Sorry about the off-topic comment, LI.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    David, you mean conflate, like using the opportunity of the aide’s complaint about political fundraising to focus on Public Advicate and the copyright issue? Yes. SApecific is as specific does.

    Yes Liz, really, the Lambert property. Your husband took an oath to review applications with an open mind, and before the staff report was complete, he acted to negotiate with some one who was no more mpowered than he to do so. he was not the entire board, nor was he the school board, and she wasn’t the owner or the owner’s rep–neither was she the school board. And your husband lost his delegate race, and so did her dad.

    The property may have been cheaper, but had an encircled private home in the center that the realtor was claiming would “just be condemnded”, a dirt road access that was not, as was also being said, eligible to pave in place under the RRRP, it had jurisdictional wetlands which were the reason for the state refusing to select an alignment there for the TriCounty Pkwy, no utilities, and one by right near it south of Braddock. yes, really. So a very special person could do a deal and make some cash.

    So make all the noise you wish, but he really should dial back a bit on the holiness, at least on who gets paid when important people “play”.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    “1. I’m not (and have not been) apologizing for any of the allegations. I’ve said they need to be looked into and appropriate action taken.”

    So why go on…

    “…anything they say has to be taken with a (big) grain of salt.”

    Evidence is evidence. It is established fact that York and Clarke withheld documents from the first investigation. The whole copying contracts controversy just brought to light is backed by hard data. It is established fact that AT BEST Eugene used tax payer dollars to fundraise for a private organization of his choosing.

    What of that would you take with a “grain of salt”?

    “…this is a medium-grade issue…”

    Is that kind of like sort of lying or just a little pregnant?

  • David Dickinson says:

    “How is the “Santa Skeleton” a defamatory lie about the members of a group of people?”

    Because it exposes your hypocricy.

    As Jonathan greatly supports the aethist group (don’t give me the kid-was-a-christian while his mom is an aethist BS) who put up santa on a cruxcifix, it puts you in a bad position.

    1. You claim to be anti-hate.
    2. You state that “intentional incitement of rage and fear with defamatory lies” is qualification for “hate.”
    3. RAPAC members supports the group that put up santa skeleton crucifix which, by YOUR definition, is hate as it was an intential act to incite rage.
    4. RAPAC is therfore party to hate.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    David, I will ask again, what does the supposed hypocrisy of the accuser have to do with the offenses of the accused?

  • David Dickinson says:

    “So why go on…”

    And as Barbara just said, “but he really should dial back a bit on the holiness”

    It is the hypocrisy of this whole situation. A hate-motivated, self-proclaimed, anti-hate PAC looking to be Loudoun County’s thought police and knee-capping any official that disagrees with them.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Eric, ultimately, nothing.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    Seems to me, David, that any knee-capping in this case was self-inflicted.

    There are three issues that CAN be discussed without reference to hate, hypocrisy, or motivation:

    1. Why did York and Clarke attempt to control the first investigation? Also, did they not have a responsiblity to come forward to the public with teh allegations?

    2. What are the ramifications of the data presented regarding the relationship between contributors and contract awards and Eugene’s role in it?

    3. Even if cleared of all other charges, why should Eugene (or any current BOS member) be allowed to fund raise using tax payer funded staff for a private organization of his choosing?

    The REST of the issues wil have to wait until the investigation results come back (unless new data is brought to light).

  • David says:

    Exactly, Eric. Evidence is evidence. The evidence is not looking good for Eugene and his protectors, like Mr. York.

    And that explains the tangled, frothing mass of illogic, conflation and denial that just issued forth from BarbaraDD. It’s not even worth trying to tease that sloppy mess apart.

    The only thing to be learned is that those two want desperately to talk about absolutely anything other than the evidence of corruption we have presented.

    To be sure that there are no misunderstandings: It’s possible for an official to be guilty of hate, as I have defined it above, and not be guilty of criminal or policy wrongdoing. The evidence of hate alone would make the official unfit for office, and a potential person of interest to RAPAC, but would not subject him or her to a criminal investigation as we see in this case. The two things (hate in government, evidence of criminal wrongdoing) are two separate things. I point this out because of the pattern I’ve seen here of conflating things that are only peripherally related.

  • John Marsh says:

    It’s almost trite: we have a political scandal (by Delgaudio) with broad and strong criticism by the moderate mainstream concerned about good, ethical government. Then the issue gets taken on by others with an additional (albeit in my book legitimate) agendas and/or past political baggage. They predictably bring in the off-point critics that dilute the strength of the otherwise overwhelming censorship of the scandalous behavior.

  • David Dickinson says:

    “It’s possible for an official to be guilty of hate”

    That phrase sums up everything wrong with homo-fascism. “Guilty of hate.”

    Have fun chasing windmills.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    David, my only comment is this:

    “The evidence of hate alone would make the official unfit for office…”

    should be

    “The evidence of hate alone should make the official unfit for office…”

    I understand you are likely speaking from a moral stance rather than a legal stance, but the fact of the matter is that Eugene has demonstrated that simply being an offensive or hateful person does not get one thrown out of office.

  • David says:

    That’s my point, Eric. It’s not against the law to be immoral.

  • Eric the 1/2 Troll says:

    Exactly David. All the more reason to focus on the evidence of wrong-doing. So where do you go with the allegations of contracts for campaign contributions?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    John Marsh has nailed this.

    RAPAC has every right to do what they are doing. But that group comes with — and I think David, Liz and the others would agree — some “history” with Delgaudio.

    Does “history” matter? Well, it does tend to provide opportunity to the David Dickenson’s to muddy the waters with everything from defining hate to squawking about skeletons on a cross.

    I started to think: what we need is a moderate voice for good government that doesn’t have a lot of baggage and can’t be discounted out of hand by supporters of those under scrutiny.

    But that just isn’t realistic.

    Even if the press did their job, they would get slammed with labels that supporters of those under scrutiny whip out to undercut their legitimacy.

    The only people that seem to have everyone’s confidence are the folks in the Arlington CA’s office right now. Everyone else is just playing an angle — or can be accused of playing an angle.

    I applaud RAPAC for taking their right of free speech and using it. It may be that the spillover benefit of this exercise is a more transparent and responsible Board — and even DD shouldn’t mind that result.

  • Eric,

    That’s pretty simple. The RA post only covered 2012. Any citizen can visit VPAP.org and review contributions from printing and mailing firms. Please do and post what you find on our blog, or here. If the pattern of donation followed by contract is greater than the two instances reported, then so be it. If 2012 was an an anomaly, then so be that. If I were working for Supervisor Delgaudio, I’d be demonstrating that 2012 was an anomaly, and not part of a broader pattern. I certainly wouldn’t be talking about Santa Clause.

    Did anybody say anything about the donation/contract pattern or the email? Just wondering because that was the content of the RAPAC post.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    Even though SPLC has the credibility of Fetch “marking his territory” in the wastelands of Broad Run District – LITERALLY – this has turned into an entertaining discussion to read.

    Some good writing here! If I were not on a touchscreen keyboard I’d elaborate ….maybe later.

    And “5 Ways The Southern Poverty Law Center is like the Loudoun Hounds” should be an upcoming post.

  • David says:

    Truly, the silence from the Delgaudio camp speaks volumes with regard to any of the allegations made so far. Normally you wouldn’t want to find yourself between him and a microphone.

    The only “defense” he offered, when he was talking, is the admission that he used his staff aides for fundraising, but only for a private charity that he favors. Whatever.

    What’s much more interesting at this point is that Scott York is willing to risk obstruction of justice. There’s no plausible excuse for hiding evidence, regardless of how useful the evidence turned out to be – that wasn’t York’s call to make. What could Delgaudio threaten him with that could possibly be worse than the risk he took by doing that?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    David, I wouldn’t ascribe anything to “the silence” other than A) waiting for the CA, and B) no one could possibly compete with the volume provided by the diligent efforts of the pac, so why bother?

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    And c.) what can they say, really?

  • BlackOut says:

    DD, I believe Eugene has the patent on “thought police”. Best think of another term to use.

  • BlackOut says:

    Barbara, “the silence”. York is pretty good at that now, he’s been practicing it for eight (8) months. Heck one more month and he could have had a baby and everybody would have been surprised. I know pregnant pauses are so awkward.

    Also probably not that funny.

    But really, eight months is absurd.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    David, the “private charity that he favors” is one of the main focal points of the Sterling community, and has been for years. Hundreds of kids are involved in the football league. In fact if there is a larger community activity, I don’t know what it is.

    Supervisor Delgaudio raised the money to get major stuff built for those games, and all that stuff is actually there for all to see and use.

    I am not privy to what the county has spent on the LLFL, but thanks to our Supervvisor the league is better equipped than it otherwise would have been. The residents of Sterling are grateful. Though it is easy to see how people from outside Sterling, such as those running the “PAC,” would be unaware.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    Joe, are you saying it is perfectly alright for any sup to fundraise for their favorite cause using public resources if they want to? In your opinion that is?

  • BlackOut says:

    Joe, not true. Maybe a little but not as much as Eugene wants you to think. Certainly, not what a dedicated fundraising employee spending 70% of her time calling a thousand fat cats could produce. It’s a BS claim and probably was something Delgaudio used with York back in March thinking he wouldn’t have to defend it.

    We’ll see if Charlie King is able to produce live checks that Eugene was responsible for from that list. My guess is all King will be able to produce is a bunch of photo ops, nothing concrete and certainly nothing directly related to Mateer’s effort or direct links to the Igor list.

    I was involved in that league for eight years and never once heard or saw anything related to Eugene. And you can bet it would have perked my interest if I heard something. Ask Kidwell, Buckman, Skidgel, Moran or any of the other true heroes of that league. They’ll tell you the truth. A little help here and there but that is about it, and Eugene was mostly just a hog for a photo op. Eugene is using that fantastic organization as a ruse. Check the books.

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    Eric, it’s not a “favorite cause,” it is an essential part of Sterling. As to how much public resources were used and to what effect, I don’t know. I am as interested in seeing the fruits of the investigation as anyone.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Eric, re C), see A).

  • Joe Budzinski says:

    BlackOut, he spoke frankly and at length about his fundraising for local activities in the interview he did at NVTH last year, last fall. There was no rationale for all that to be “used with York” at that time – you certainly would have to agree. It looks like Supervisor Delgaudio has been upfront and unapologetic about the money he raised, the dollar amounts and what it was for, going back a few years at least.

    http://novatownhall.com/2011/10/28/eugene-delgaudio-interview/

    Maybe the work he did for LLFL has been after you were no longer involved?

    Anyway, from my perspective, Supervisor Delgaudio seems on solid ground in doing the job that Sterling residents elected him to do.

  • BlackOut says:

    Joe, It was while I was there. As I said, he did a little five or six years ago. He embellished what he did the same way he did for the Discovery playground.

    As we both will agree he’s a grand self promoter and exploits the PR pump at every turn.

    With that in mind, it is baffling to think he isn’t able to produce specifics on his fundraising in this decade for LLBF. If he had proof I would certainly think he’d be tossing that all over the papers. Sorta out of character for him to say, “I just did all this fundraising in my own time, out of the limelight, completely unselfishly, without an interest in getting the credit, and donors just sent in the checks, and I have no idea who or how much they sent in. But it was a lot.” Nope that we will all agree is not Eugene’s MO.

    Frankly, the LLBF issue is moot. He already has admitted using county time for unauthorized fundraising. That’s halfway to the truth. Now he’s going to have to do something about those pesky witnesses who have confirmed he met with them asking for campaign cash.

  • David says:

    “My guess is all King will be able to produce is a bunch of photo ops..”

    Yes, unless they try to fabricate something. Eugene already produced that bunch of photo ops himself, two days after the Washington Post article was published. His “report” leaves the distinct impression that he was taken by surprise and made rather anxious by the article. What he had admitted to the Post reporter is that he gave those “big donors” on the Igor list some kind of political literature, explaining “I don’t have anything else that describes myself, sadly.”

    So two days after the article appears he suddenly produces an old fundraising appeal, a speech, and a bunch of photos, claiming that this proves what the Igor meetings were about. The trouble is, he hadn’t shared any of that suddenly available LLBFL material with any of the “big donors” on the Igor list contacted by the Post. Kind of a big red flag there.

    This is old news. If ED had any substantive evidence to back up his claim, he would have produced that instead of the fluff he came up with. It was published on his Sterling Supervisor website back on September 27 or 28, and has panicky damage control written all over it. BO’s report of never hearing a thing about his involvement with LLBFL in 8 years fits perfectly. That’s just because BO wasn’t around for the fluffy photo ops.

Leave Comment