Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Faisal Gill’s Disclosures Raise Concerns

By Greg L | 23 April 2007 | 51st HOD District, PWCRC | 135 Comments

I’m hearing a fair amount of concern over PWCRC Chairman Tom Kopko’s work for 51st District candidate Faisal Gill, which showed up on Gill’s latest campaign finance disclosure. Apparently this issue will be the subject of some discussion at tonight’s committee meeting, and will likely soon become a concern for RPV. Some firm resolution to the questions raised by this are sorely needed, as this has great potential to be a campaign issue in the general election.

Not only is there a potential problem with having the effective Chairman of the 51st District being on the payroll for one of the candidates seeking the Republican nomination, but the timing of this episode is deeply disturbing. On January 4th, Julie Lucas asked Tom for a primary to decide the means of nomination. Later in the month, Tom Kopko announced that there would be a convention, which was the method favored by Faisal Gill. On January 5th there is a line item in Faisal’s finance report which showed a $1,000 payment by Faisal Gill’s campaign to Tom Kopko for “consulting.” This timing may well be entirely coincidental. Given that it’s not entirely proper for the chairman of the legislative district committee to be on the payroll of a candidate seeking a nomination in the first place, there are questions being asked about what the actual nature of the work was that was performed for Faisal Gill, and whether that work ended up corrupting the process of establishing the method of nomination in the 51st District.

The appearance of impropriety here is undeniable. This payment has all the hallmarks of the solicitation and acceptance of a bribe. While I have always been convinced that Tom Kopko is an honorable and fair man, this sequence of events is hard to explain in a way that will reassure committee members and the larger public.

UPDATE: After reviewing the call, it seems that delegate forms for the convention are being sent to Tom Kopko’s house. That was a decision of the 51st District committee. That committee has one member: Tom Kopko.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

135 Comments

  1. Loudoun Insider said on 23 Apr 2007 at 10:40 am:
    Flag comment

    I can only hope that people wake up and smell the coffee here. Where’s Charles and the other Gill defenders? How can you explain this away?

  2. Batson D. Belfrey said on 23 Apr 2007 at 10:41 am:
    Flag comment

    “While I have always been convinced that Tom Kopko is an honorable and fair man, this sequence of events is hard to explain in a way that will reassure committee members and the larger public.”

    I have a different opinion. Honorable and fair are words I would associate with Karen Ulrich, and the example that she set by stepping down as Vice Chair, to work on the Lucas campaign.

    I don’t believe that this was a coincidence, that Gill cut a check to Kopko on the same day that Kopko announced that the nomination would be decided in a convention. Furthermore, a Committee Chairman has no business what-so-ever taking money, selling services, or “consulting” on a candidates campaing, when that candidate has not received the nomination yet. The Committee Chairman must appear to all to be impartial. His job is to faciliate the process of nomination, not to be paid campaing staff for a nominee. Additionally, Kopko has no business being paid staff on any campaign within the district for which he is the Chairman. Had Kopko “consulted” on a Republican candidate’s campaign in Fairfax, Loudoun or Stafford, and the seat for which the candidate is running lies entirely outside of PWC, then there is no problem. However, this is not the case.

    The bottom-line is Kopko appears tainted. The process appears tainted. The last thing Republicans need right now is scandal, but this isn’t the first time that Kopko and Company have put their own selfish desires ahead of the GOP. Kopko must go. He’s not a judge. He can’t recuse himself, especially since he alread called the convention.

    The PWCGOP needs to get rid of Kopko now, before it ends up like the LCRC.

    [Ed note: the payment to Kopko was actually made before the decision on the nominating process was made, not on the same day as the decision. The post has been corrected.]

  3. Jonathan Mark said on 23 Apr 2007 at 11:35 am:
    Flag comment

    Since this is a convention, be wary of a trick which the Moran machine in the 8th District allegedly pulls at Dem conventions.

    You hold a convention. If your favored candidate has the votes then the vote is held immediately. If not then the process drags out for hours while additional “voters” are recruited from outside. I put “voters” in quotation marks because the people accrediting the last minute voters are the machine, which is answerable to no one as to who it accredits.

    Hopefully the PWC Republican machine is more on the up and up than the 8th District Democratic/Jim Moran machine. However, nothing I have observed so far would suggest that to be the case.

  4. Anonymous said on 23 Apr 2007 at 11:37 am:
    Flag comment

    From the PWCRC bylaws:

    Subsection 4. Removal

    Any Member of the Committee, including the Chairman, may be removed from office by the vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the other Members of the Committee, after being furnished with notice that such removal will be sought, with the charges, in writing, signed by not less than one-third (1/3) of the Members of the Committee; and allowing thirty (30) days within which to appear and defend against the charges.

    Subsection 5. Suspension of Officers

    In the event of serious misconduct, any officer of the Committee may be suspended by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Executive Committee. Such suspension shall become effective immediately, and shall be effective for not more than thirty (30) days. Such suspension shall be ratified or vacated at the next regular or special meeting of the Committee. If ratified, the suspension shall become permanent, pending removal of said officer.

  5. Anonymous said on 23 Apr 2007 at 11:48 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, you should contact Keith Walker of the Potomac News and bring this to his attention. I am positive that this is something they want to cover tonight.

  6. John Light said on 23 Apr 2007 at 12:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    http://www.zwire.com/site/tab6.cfm?newsid=17384113&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506105&rfi=8 - This article, from 10/26/2006 “The Gainesville Times” has a VERY interesting quote:

    “Once Scarborough concluded the debate, however, Kopko stood up from his chair, turned to another man and said Hurst was a ’son of a bitch.’

    When asked why he said that about Hurst, Kopko replied, ‘He shouldn’t accuse people of bribery and corruption the way he did tonight. He wants an adult conversation … he’s far from it.’”

    This is VERY interesting in light of recent events.

  7. Loudoun Insider said on 23 Apr 2007 at 12:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    Since Prince William is split between the 10th and 11th Congressional Districts, which District Chairman oversees Kopko? This should be sent up the ladder through the District Chairman to RPV, like the mess in Loudoun was. What the hell has happened to the Republican Party???

  8. Citizen Tom said on 23 Apr 2007 at 12:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    The reason Gill’s defenders are not here is that this gets tiresome after awhile. Charge after charge after charge after charge — trying all the while to see if something, anything, will stick.

    Since nobody is perfect, I suppose eventually, just possibly, Greg might find something that will stick. Nonetheless, in effort to find and invent crap, he has so immersed himself in it why should anyone bother to take him seriously? Would that not be ironic? Greg find something, and no one bothers to notice.

    The idea of a publicly recorded bribe is rather funny. Has any of you bothered to ask Gill or Kopko what this consulting fee is all about?

  9. Anonymous said on 23 Apr 2007 at 12:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Citizen Tom, this is not about Gill. Its about how unbelievably stupid Kopko was to do this.

  10. John Light said on 23 Apr 2007 at 12:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Citizen Tom,
    INVENT crap??? EVERYTHING that has been posted about Faisal on this site is documented fact. Be it the violations of the Hatch Act, the violations of the UCMJ, the wreckless driving charges, the back to back police tickets (during a campaign, mind you), the fact that he was spokesman for a terrorist organization. These are NOT suppositions, guesses, or even made-up events.

    Ok, why don’t we ask Charles Manson if he is guilty of the crimes that he “supposedly” committed. Let’s disregard anything that was said in the past, because it MAY have been under durress. Who cares about the facts in that case, let’s ask him and IF he says that he did nothing wrong, then we should let him free.

    What you are saying is that if we go to the guilty party and ask if they violated law, we should TRUST them??? It is clear that Kopko was acting in his. and his client’s (Faisal’s) best interest. Instead of going by the name “Citizen Tom”, maybe it would be best to go by “Citizen Benedict” because hey, Benedict Arnold only did what he felt was best for this country at the time, right?

  11. George said on 23 Apr 2007 at 12:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Open your eyes, Citizen Tom. Why is Kopko, as party chair, accepting money from a candidate BEFORE the filing deadline???

  12. Citizen Tom said on 23 Apr 2007 at 12:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    The is not about Gill? Anonymous, have read the title?

  13. John Light said on 23 Apr 2007 at 12:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    And by the way, IF Faisal WAS my candidate (which he will NEVER be), it WOULD get tiresome and I would call him up and say, “For the good of the party, and Prince William County, it is best that you step down so we can let Ms. Lucas win this nomination. I am sorry, buddy, but every week it is something else.”

    NOT being his friend, I say, “Faisal, it is time for you to not only step down, but to stay out of local politics until you renounce ALL past associations you have with the American Muslim Council and for aiding and abetting Terrorists against the Patriot Act.”

  14. Citizen Tom said on 23 Apr 2007 at 12:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    George, why don’t you ask Gill or Kopko?

  15. Anonymous said on 23 Apr 2007 at 12:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    There is a pattern here, just take a look at the Clerk of the Court race and ask Lucy Beachump what Kopko and company did to her in that race. Ask Kopko why he had to walk through the filing process with Delegate McQuigg (who has been running for office for over 15 years) at the county registrar’s office on April 13th. Ask Supervisor Caddigan what is happening in the Dumfries primary race. The PWCRC no longer stands for the PWC residents, it belongs soley for the betterment of Strewart, Kopko, and their ultra right wing ideology.

  16. Go Green said on 23 Apr 2007 at 1:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    It became clear where Kopko stands as soon as he wrote the check. I am not defending Messier but he has been tarred and feathered for even mentioning a “donation.” Kopko should be run out of town.

  17. James Young said on 23 Apr 2007 at 1:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    Your post in chief raises the question of from whence you are “hearing a fair amount of concern,” Greg? The voices inside your head? ;-)

    Seriously, though, I agree that Kopko shouldn’t have done this (it was the practice of the first few Chairman — Kling, Phelps, Becker — to maintain official neutrality, though there is nothing in the Party Plan requiring it) if he knew there was to be a contest. The question is, did he? Back in early January, was Julie Lucas even mentioned as a potential candidate? Not that I recall, but I could be corrected on this. Remember, Lucas came to this race rather late.

    However, whether this happened questionably or not, it will not prevent those who will use every mistake — real or imagined — as an effort to attack Kopko and/or Conservatives and/or Gill.

    And I have to wonder whether you or some of those commenting would have had the same response if Kopko had received payment from the Lucas campaign. Moreover, this has NO potential to be a general election issue, since it is purely inside baseball kind of stuff.

    What is truly fascinating is how much the comments are filled almost exclusively with people with: (a) no stake in the outcome, but with admirable loyalty to an old friend (sorry, John, but you live in Springfield now, don’t you?); or (b) hate-filled anonymous people whose comments are as substanceless as their names.

  18. Jonathan Mark said on 23 Apr 2007 at 1:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"in effort to find and invent crap, he [Greg L.] has so immersed himself in it why should anyone bother to take him seriously?”"”

    There are none so blind as those who will not see!

  19. John Light said on 23 Apr 2007 at 2:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jim,
    While it is true I live in Springfield, I DO have a stake in this outcome. As a taxpayer, EVERY vote that the victor makes as Delegate DIRECTLY affects me in one way or another, so you better believe that it affects me.

    That being said, could be said that YOU, Citizen Tom AND Charles, who are all big fans of Faisal’s, do not live in the 51st District either???

  20. James Young said on 23 Apr 2007 at 2:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Correction: The statement that “On January 4th, Julie Lucas asked Tom for a primary to decide the means of nomination.” So arguably, Kopko knew of Lucas’ interest.

    While I favor conventions over primaries as a matter of course — and anyone who has been active in the County GOP knows my record in this regard, and were I Kopko, I would have told Lucas “No” regardless, so that the party could keep control of its nominating processes — the timing of the donation, coupled with this fact (IF TRUE!) is highly questionable. I guess the question is whether Kopko was influenced by this payment. I’m not sure we can ever know the answer to that question.

    I am, however, sure that, whether they know or not, there are those here who will attack Gill and Kopko.

  21. George said on 23 Apr 2007 at 2:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    James - Are you saying they should be exempt from scrutiny despite the answered questions??

    It appears that some people, at least, are not attacking, but would really like to know the answer.

  22. John Light said on 23 Apr 2007 at 3:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not only know the answer, but frankly, are sick and tired of the hubris from the Kopko/Faisal camp that they can get away with everything and act like they are political novices.

    If this was the first thing Tom ever did politically, we could EASILY excuse this as being naiive, but, Tom has history and just should know better and DO better.

    Jim, I have a question for you, did ANYONE sit down with Faisal prior to his announcing that he was running and ask if there was ANYTHING that he has not disclosed that the Democrats could use against him? All one has to do is go to http://www.google.com and type in “Faisal Gill”. This is no secret I am posting here, ANYONE can do it and I am sure that WHOEVER the nominee is (for any race, for that matter, regardless where in the world it may be), the opponent’s people will do that. Why spend hours digging up dirt when you can hopefully find information the easy way???

    If Faisal DID sit down with you and say that there was NOTHING in his past, it might be a good idea to pull him aside and have him do the honorable thing. If Faisal did sit down and say that there WERE questionable things in his past (this includes anything that was improper of which he was accused but cleared), then I can see how you would INITIALLY defend him (assuming that he truly does have Conservative creditentials). But, with EVERYTHING that has come to light over the past few months (UCMJ violations, multiple traffic tickets within days of each other, Kopkogate [sorry, could not help that one]), I just cannot see how you can continue to believe for one moment that he is the better candidate than Ms. Lucas.

  23. James Young said on 23 Apr 2007 at 3:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    John, if I believed everything I read here, I might agree that he is not a better candidate than Julie. But what you describe as things that have “come to light” is little more than sleaze pandered by merchants with a frequently personal agenda to harm Conservatives and/or the GOP and/or Faisal Gill. And I could give a rat’s behind about traffic tickets, UNLESS they were for going an excessive speed in a residential area. “Let he who is without sin in this area,” etc. Besides, I care more about what a candidate is going to do to me as a legislator than whether or not he’s going to breeze by me on I-95.

    However, it is one of my great disappointments that you have joined in — to a lesser degree than others, but to a certain extent, nevertheless — the smear campaign that is the hallmark of this website and some of those who comment here. I have more respect for you than that, and try to chalk it up to your loyalty to Julie.

  24. John C. Headley said on 23 Apr 2007 at 3:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Much ink over nothing…

    Legislative District Committees are usually small in number. In many areas they only have one or two people on them because of RPV Party Plan requirements (see rpv.org for details).

    Bottom line is the committee, not the candidate, selects the process (see the Attorney General brief before the federal district court for more on this general topic and how it even applies to incumbent Republicans).

    “OH MY, KOPKO SUPPORTED A CONVENTION…” Give me a break. Most grassroots party leaders and effective party folks I know of prefer a convention as the standard model for nominations because it builds the party and builds volunteers. In fact, I pretty much will vote for a convention every time I have a chance. Again, no news there.

    After the process is picked it is a simple thing to move forward. And, of course, we are talking about politics so folks jump on one campaign or the other all the time.

    As a Party Chairman myself I have no problem with other unit chairs making endoursements, being involved in political campaigns or otherwise “engaging in politics.”

    While you might not like Chairman Kopko’s politics you will have to do better than what I have seen to date to bring any credible allegation forward.

    Every legitimate party leader and viable campaign I know of is aware of the above process. If folks are shocked or “pretending to be shocked” it does not speak ill of Chairman Kopko but those who don’t read and understand the State Party Plan.

    John C. Headley
    King George Republican Chairman

    P.S. To those who say that Chairman Kopko should be brought before any RPV committee over any of the above, I say bring it on. I would welcome a chance to purge the party of folks who don’t understand party procedure and our duty to one another as party members — but then again who knows if “Loudoun Insider” is actually a Republican at all since the person does not have the guts to identify himself/herself.

  25. anon said on 23 Apr 2007 at 3:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree Kopko should not accept consulting fees from any candidates, period. However, you have wrong information on this. Julie didn’t even decide to run, let alone prefer a method of nomination until February. In addition, Kopko did not choose a nomination process until February–long after the date of the payment.

  26. John Light said on 23 Apr 2007 at 3:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    John Headley,
    So, for the record, you see that there is NOTHING unethical in accepting money from one candidate and going against the wishes of a current office-holder and NOT make it known that you are a paid consultant for said candidate.

    As a Republican, I PERSONALLY have a problem when a Chair openly endorses one candidate over the other or makes decisions without letting it be known in what way he supports one candidate over the other.

    Now, you may say that Tom has every legal right to do so. Well, abortion is legal, but that does not make it right.

  27. anon said on 23 Apr 2007 at 3:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    So, I take it Mr. Headley that you CONDONE a county party chairman taking money from one of the candidates in a contested primary?

    Good to know.

    Have you done it?

  28. anon said on 23 Apr 2007 at 3:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree Kopko should not accept consulting fees from any candidates, period. However, you have wrong information on this. Julie didn’t even decide to run, let alone prefer a method of nomination until February. In addition, Kopko did not choose a nomination process until February–long after the date of the payment.

  29. Not Larry Sabato said on 23 Apr 2007 at 3:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    That’s not true. I remember the filing deadline was the end of Jan. b/c it was the day before the Dion/May Special Election.

    So Julie had to file in January in order to be a candidate.

  30. Batson D. Belfrey said on 23 Apr 2007 at 4:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Headley,

    You never mentioned the not-so-small matter of the money. How convenient. THe fact still remains that the Chairman of the PWCGOP has been paid by a candidate, for what services I don’t know. “Consulting” means a lot of things, but this looks like a bribe. A lot of people see it that way.

    As a party chairman, you should know how this looks. A Chairman needs to appear impartial. Taking what appears to be a bribe doesn’t look like Kopko impartial.

  31. Jonathan Mark said on 23 Apr 2007 at 4:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ever-eager to defend every aspect of Faisal Gill’s candidacy, James Young writes “”"And I could give a rat’s behind about traffic tickets, UNLESS they were for going an excessive speed in a residential area. “”"

    If you are hit by a speeder in a commercial district you are just as stone-cold dead as you are if hit in a residential district. Faisal wasn’t stopped repeatedly (sometimes within days of a previous offence) in the Mojave Desert somewhere. It was here in Northern Virginia.

  32. John Light said on 23 Apr 2007 at 4:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon,

    You are incorrect. Tom Kopko published the original call in January with the information about the convention with a filing deadline for candidates as January 29, 2007. The call was in the paper at least a week prior (cannot remember the exact date) to the filing deadline for candidates. The filing deadline was the day before Mike May’s special election which was January 30, 2007.

  33. AWCheney said on 23 Apr 2007 at 5:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    …and Kopko accepted the consulting fee (not donation, as some people are putting it) on January 5th. Subsequent to the payment of the consulting fee, a convention was selected over a primary for the 51st, Gill was selected to run the operation for the Occoquan convention (where the only thing he did was make sure that it had plenty of his campaign material available), and he (Gill) had HIS campaign material handed out at the polls at the Special Election with impunity.

    So, tell me Mr. Young…do YOU accept consulting fees from opposing council?…do the judges?

  34. AWCheney said on 23 Apr 2007 at 5:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Of course I meant counsel. Wouldn’t want you to think less of me…like that could happen. ;-)

  35. anonymouse said on 23 Apr 2007 at 6:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m not sure why some posters think that the only place you can kill people with your excessive speed is in a residential neighborhood.

    Unfortunately, I’ve seen quite a few deadly wrecks because of speed maniacs behind the wheel.

    And those of you on I95 who think 80 isn’t “too fast” — you’re living in your own little fantasy world. I’ve been up and down I95 and there isn’t a time on it when 80 is even anywhere close to acceptable. You’re not on some deserted South Dakota straightaway. And I just pray that you don’t kill someone soon.

  36. James Young said on 23 Apr 2007 at 6:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    John Headly is exactly correct on LD committees. Each unit with voters in one is entitled to one representative on the Committee. Hence, Kopko (or his designee) IS the Committee in which he resides, and Kopko appoints the PW “committee” of one for the 52nd. He also appoints the PW representative for LD committees where the district overlaps more than one unit, like Jackson Miller’s, Bob Marshall’s, and Scott Lingamfelter’s.

    As for the “ethics” of accepting consulting fees, where one stands on “ethics” frequently depends upon where one sits, i.e., anybody can question anything as “unethical.” I repeat: I agree that it is unseemly for Kopko to accept a consulting fee from a candidate for a contested GOP nomination, IF AWARE THAT IT IS CONTESTED. I wouldn’t have done it, were I similarly-situated, and would have advised against it, had I been asked. However, I don’t believe that it is clear that, when he did so (1/5/07), the nomination would be contested. I don’t recall hearing about Julie’s possible candidacy until a day or two before Lingamfelter’s announcement (I don’t remember the date), and even at that event, she was rather coy about whether she would do so.

    With that having been said, it violates no rule of the RPV or the PWC Party Plan to do so. Likewise, nothing bars unit chairmen from endorsing or aiding a particular candidate for the GOP nomination. I speak only to past practice on the issue, and what I firmly believe to be the better practice.

  37. Loudoun Insider said on 23 Apr 2007 at 7:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    That’s some head on your shoulders there, Headley. It’s people like YOU that are destroying the Republican Party, with your pseudo-morality and selective enforcement of the rules. Get off your high horse about pseudonymity in the blogosphere. My Republican Party is one of ideas and the HIGHEST standards, morality, and ethics. The ends do NOT justify the means. It looks like the only way to be considered truly conservative these days is to be a self-righteous a-hole. Kopko is totally out of line taking $1,000 from Gill. Period. End of story.

  38. James Young said on 23 Apr 2007 at 9:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    Let’s see: a unit chairman with a record who puts his name on his comments vs. a sanctimonious, cowardly a-hole whose tactics differ not at all from someone seeking to destroy the GOP.

    Guess this round goes to Loudmouth Nihilist … er, “Loudoun Insider”!

  39. James Young said on 23 Apr 2007 at 9:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Just to set the record straight, Kopko said at tonight’s County GOP Committee meeting what I suspected: he had no idea that Lucas was running when he performed these services for Gill. Likewise, he ALWAYS prefers conventions over primaries, so his decision in this regard wouldn’t have been different, even had he known of Lucas’ candidacy.

    This is much ado about nothing.

  40. George said on 23 Apr 2007 at 10:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Should the party chair be a paid consultant to a candidate before the filing deadline??

  41. NoVA Scout said on 23 Apr 2007 at 11:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why does it make a bit of difference whether Kopko knew there would be other candidates or not? Until the filing deadline passed, one would have to be aware that there could be other candidates. Moreover, the issue raised here is whether a Committee Chairman be working as a paid consultant for one of the candidates (regardless of whether other candidates emerged)? In any fair or rational world the only possible answer is No.

  42. Loudoun Insider said on 23 Apr 2007 at 11:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    BFD, James Young called me a name again. Please get over it.

    Back to the question at hand, should Kopko be “consulting” for a fee for a candidate that he is supposed to be assisting as Chairman, regardless of the impropriety of taking sides before the nomination process? Of course he would say what he said, but this still stinks.

  43. James Young said on 24 Apr 2007 at 12:43 am:
    Flag comment

    “In any fair or rational world,” a candidate for the GOP nomination would make their intentions known well in advance. “In any fair or rational world,” the people listened to would be those with a record and a reputation regarding their commitment to the integrity of the process, and officious intermeddlers without record or reputation would dismissed as precisely that.

    Plenty of GOP officials have worked as paid consultants. Former State Central Committee member Kevin Gentry comes to mind. Doubtless there are others.

    The fact is, there wasn’t even an inkling among PWC County GOP activists that Lucas was contemplating a run for this office until AFTER the payment had been made. It was utterly “fair and/or rational” for Kopko to work with the presumption that Gill was the only candidate.

    This is just another effort to discredit with flimsy accusations those who cannot be successfully attacked on policy grounds.

  44. Greg L said on 24 Apr 2007 at 1:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Actually Julie Lucas officially officially filed on January 29th, but Tom asked Julie what method of nomination she preferred as a candidate on January 4th. The payment was made on January 5th.

  45. NoVA Scout said on 24 Apr 2007 at 6:21 am:
    Flag comment

    James, I would submit that the fairness and wisdom of a local committee chairman taking substantial sums (and 1 Large is still a substantial sum) from a candidate prior to the party selection process being complete can be judged objectively, without reference to the meager reputations of persons who suggest it is a bad idea. The issue wasn’t raised at the time the services were being performed and the money was taken because very few people knew about it, certainly not those who might object.
    I assume, however, that had Ms. Lucas or her supporters known about it in January or February, they would have objected strenuously. I would hope that you would concede that she is a person with a passable “record and reputation” in local Republican circles.

  46. NoVA Scout said on 24 Apr 2007 at 6:31 am:
    Flag comment

    James, I would submit that the fairness and wisdom of a local committee chairman taking substantial sums (and 1 Large is still a substantial sum) from a candidate prior to the party selection process being complete can be judged objectively, without reference to the meager reputations of persons who suggest it is a bad idea. The issue wasn’t raised at the time the services were being performed and the money was taken because very few people knew about it, certainly not those who might object. I assume, however, that had Ms. Lucas or her supporters known about it in January or February, they would have objected strenuously. I would hope that you would concede that she is a person with a passable “record and reputation” in local Republican circles.

    I’m not sure that you get a pass for your guys by citing other examples of active pariticipants in the state process who have received compensation for political activity. If you want to cite widespread examples of local committee chairs getting on the payroll of one candidate before the primary or convention, I’ll listen, but still conclude that it’s a rotten idea (plus I don’t think you can cite that and that your reference to someone like Kevin Gentry is just an exercise in obfuscation). What smells bad to folks on this one is that the local selection process within the district was just getting off the ground and the County Chairman was already taking funds from one candidate. Despite my feeble reputation, I think I can make an objective case that this undermines the integrity of the selection process and hence degrades the Party’s reputation with its members and the general electorate. It’s very easy for a few people in the local party structure to have tremendous influence over candidate selection. The larger electorate is very dependent on that process being above board and rigorous. The party is very dependent on the process finding candidates who can win in November. If it appears that the whole process is about a dozen folks greasing each others’ palms and scratching each others’ backs, we all are worse off.

  47. Anonymous said on 24 Apr 2007 at 7:55 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, Julie needs to file an official complaint with RPVA and Ebert’s office on this asap. We can’t let Kopko and company get away with this.

  48. Had to Say said on 24 Apr 2007 at 8:01 am:
    Flag comment

    So if you are concerned about Kopko tking this money, get behind Julie and make sure she wins the nomination!

  49. James Young said on 24 Apr 2007 at 9:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Well, that’s the point, isn’t it, “Had to Say”?

    ‘Course, it might be more fruitful if these people had something nice to say about Julie, rather than merely a consistent drumbeat to Bork Faisal.

  50. Anonymous said on 24 Apr 2007 at 9:43 am:
    Flag comment

    Ironically, Julie had a chance last night to say something (anything) after Tom explained himself and she passed.

  51. anonymous said on 24 Apr 2007 at 11:45 am:
    Flag comment

    It is disingenuous to think that Kopko or any politically aware Republicans were unaware of Lucas’ interest in running for Delegate.

    A quick search of the Washington Post archives turns up a November 9, 2006 article that states in part:
    “If McQuigg or Beauchamp vacates her current post, her departure could set off a chain reaction among School Board members: Lucas has been mentioned among politicos as being eager for a job in Richmond, specifically McQuigg’s.”

    I also recall a fairly detailed article in the Extra section around the same time exploring these dominoes, and Lucas was prominently featured.

  52. in a pickle said on 24 Apr 2007 at 1:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    No need to go to Wash post:
    It’s right here on this Blog:

    PWC 07 OUTLOOK — UPDATED
    By Greg L | 13 November 2006 | PWC Politics | 5 Comments

    Julie Lucas, PWC School Board member may run for the 51st District.

    Riley:
    Riley, Not O’Reilly said on 15 Nov 2006 at 12:56 pm:
    May and Gray are both in for Occoquan.
    Julie Lucas is in for 51st HOD if Michele steps down.

  53. Anonymous said on 24 Apr 2007 at 1:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    The facts are starting to pile up against Kopko. What is the over and under that we read in the paper this week that an investigation of Kopko is taken place?

  54. Karen S. Ulrich said on 24 Apr 2007 at 2:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dear BVBL Readers,

    Thank you for your offers to help the Julie Lucas Campaign! I received multiple telephone calls and emails after the news posted on this blog informing the people who did not know that, Tom Kopko, our party chairman, who is a committee of one and therefore makes all the decisions for the nomination process for the 51st district had accepted $1,000.00 from one of the candidates for the 51st District Republican nomination.

    I was shocked by this news and immediately tried to contact Tom to discuss this matter with him. I would like to point out, one campaign knew about the money given to our chairman for three months, Julie Lucas’s campaign had less than 24 hours before the PWCRC meeting last night to try to figure out what had happened and what the possible ramifications would be.

    Tom informed the committee last night of his “contracted” work with one of the candidates, which he said had occurred months ago. He said he would meet with both campaigns to discuss whatever problems this may have caused. We will meet with our chairman and the other campaign.

    Julie Lucas’s campaign believes the nomination process is very serious and should be handled with honesty, integrity and full disclosure. We did not want to react to this confusing situation without first examining the rules and regulations governing this process and giving our chairman the opportunity to meet with us and explain.

    Thank you for your time and interest,

    Karen S. Ulrich

  55. John C. Headley said on 24 Apr 2007 at 3:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    Much more to do about nothing…

    Some people just are not up to par in this debate…”It looks like the only way to be considered truly conservative these days is to be a self-righteous a-hole. Kopko is totally out of line taking $1,000 from Gill. Period. End of story.”– Loudoun Insider.

    Notice that the aforementioned anonomous person is the one scraping the bottom of debate tank with the above language.

    The overarching point I was making is a party chairman does not stop being a voter on a political force in Legislative District Committees. In fact, it is just the opposite. While a party chair may or may not get involved in contested races, it is really what the person wants to do.

    This is politics. People support other people. Some people choose to stay out of a contested race or debate. Others don’t. Here in the 28th Senatorial District Russ Moulton our LDC chairman has endoursed one of the four candidates in the GOP nomination.

    Yawn.

    As to the payment for services or the more common “contributions” to campaigns. Virtually every unit Chairman donates money to various candidates from time to time. That is why most unit chairman are in volunteer politics.

    If you don’t like someone’s politics just say that. Trying to say someone has committed a “felony” or is “unethical” for doing this or that is just wrong.

    Next time someone has an issue about not understanding the RPV State Party Plan and it’s various implications I suggest actually doing some homework first (like reading the Plan of Organization) before trying to kill a person’s public reputation.

    Now let me recap. A unit chair took political action to support an individual candidate in what turned out to be a contested nomination. I am SHOCKED. HOW DARE HE. Oh, wait a minute, that’s what viturally all active unit chairman do.

    For a stronger party,

    John C. Headley
    King George Republican Committee Chairman

    P.S. Would the real slim-shady please stand up — Loudoun Insider, how come you don’t have the guts to ID yourself? Since you don’t mind saying people like me are “a-holes” I think we all deserve to know who you are. Or are you against that “full disclosure?”

  56. Jonathan Mark said on 24 Apr 2007 at 3:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Virtually every unit Chairman donates money to various candidates from time to time. That is why most unit chairman are in volunteer politics.”"”

    But in this case the opposite happened. A candidate (Gill) paid money to a Chairman (Kopko.) This Chairman then made a decision which helped the candidate who paid him.

    The above is sufficiently rare that Faisal Gill’s defenders cannot come up with another instance of it happening.

  57. Greg L said on 24 Apr 2007 at 4:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    What continues to concern me about this, and I’m not quite sure to make of it all, is that even after hearing the explanations this still doesn’t seem to make sense. Gill paid $4,000 to huberspace for the website, and clearly has folks on his team who understand how to do a finance report, so Kopko’s efforts don’t seem to have been actually needed by the campaign. Why they were valued so highly remains a mystery to me.

    I’m also concerned about the timeline. If both Jim Riley and myself knew in November that Lucas was almost certain to run, I can’t imagine how someone more on the inside would seem to be unaware of this. Even if it wasn’t known with certainty, the likelihood was strong enough that support of a presumed nominee would seem to be suspect.

    And why would Kopko feel that Gill needed to be spending a lot of money and driving hard in January if this was for a presumed default nominee? I appreciate a campaign that works hard and long, but I really don’t see the immediacy behind getting that campaign moving so early unless the intent was to scare off potential opponents, and that’s not what I’d expect a chairman to want to be a part of.

    I don’t know whether there was wrongdoing. I do know this doesn’t look good. And I am concerned that the information being presented doesn’t seem to provide a plausible explanation. Until there’s a more full explanation about this matter, the questions raised here are going to persist whether that’s a good thing or not.

  58. John C. Headley said on 24 Apr 2007 at 4:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Let the record please show that I don’t know any of the candidates involved nor am I involved in any of the aforementioned campaigns.

    As a logical matter, there is now real difference between an in-kind donation, a cash donation.a “re-payment” for expenses, or a campaign expenditure for consulting.

    And there is no there, there when a unit chair decides on a convention as the method of nomination. Many of my colleagues do support conventions so that we can keep many of the Democrats that read and contribute to this blog from voting in our nomination.

    John C. Headley
    King George Republican Committee Chairman

  59. The Skeptic said on 24 Apr 2007 at 4:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Batson, Karen Ulrich fair and honorable? PUHHHHleeze. She is sneaky and manipulative and that’s putting it nicely. Ulrich and Caddigan are two peas in a pod. Kopko is much more trustworthy than these to slime bags.

    How dare you ignite the flames encouraging the allegations of Kopko accepting a bribe! You and I both know that Tom provided marketing support for Gill, it wasn’t a secret. Kopko made a bad decision, not the first and probably not the last. You’re just mad because the new PWC Boys Club doesn’t include you!

    And for the record, I support Julie and she will get my vote at the Convention but you won’t see me around any campaign that engages the wicked witch of the west! Fair and honorable PUHH!

  60. Greg L said on 24 Apr 2007 at 5:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    I believe Karen Ulrich is one of the finest Republicans on the committee, and it disturbs me greatly to hear someone call her “a slimebag”. Be aware that this comment was nearly deleted, as it definitely crosses the line I try to maintain in regards to what is acceptable conduct here. If I see this happen again, I’m going to start locking things down some more. This is a rare warning.

    I’ve seen Karen work behind the scenes on some very difficult issues and ensure fair treatment for nomination candidates on more than one occasion. She decided to step down as vice-chair when she was going to work on behalf of a candidate, which probably should have inspired another leader to consider doing the same of late. She’s done one heck of a lot of work for our elected officials, our candidates and for the committee. She doesn’t deserve this.

  61. Jonathan Mark said on 24 Apr 2007 at 5:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"You and I both know that Tom provided marketing support for Gill, “”"

    What does that mean? What kind of marketing support? Someone said that for $1000 Kopko wrote a paragraph on a Gill flyer.

    Is there some kind of a bill which describes what kind of work Kopko did for Gill? If this $1000 payment is all on the up and up then I should think that Kopko would want to produce a bill and demonstrate that to be the case.

  62. James Young said on 24 Apr 2007 at 6:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    You chose your euphemism, Loudmouthed Nihilist. It’s standard practice on the Left (i.e., “fair share fees” for forced union dues). I prefer accuracy.

    As for the attack on Karen Ulrich, I don’t think that’s fair, either. Far as I can tell, neither Julie nor her campaign are engaged in the hate campaign being waged here against Faisal (Greg presumably knows who most of these people are, so this is just surmise). Karen’s comment is consistent with avoiding that kind of character assassination.

    The bottom line is this: if you want to bar this practice, amend the rules (or try to do so) to bar it. Frankly, having gone through this debate when we adopted the County Party Plan, I doubt you’ll succeed. ‘Til then, Headly is right.

    If Kopko knew at the time he performed these services that Lucas was considering a run (and I think it’s a little arrogant to believe that he monitors the blogosphere and maintains an encyclopaedic recollection of WAGs (wild-assed guesses)), then he should say so, tell his critics to go to Hell, and move on. Just like the Bush Administration should have done regarding the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys (who serve at the pleasure of the President).

    The bottom line is that he violated no rules, and acted as many unit chairmen do.

    The other bottom line is that his/Faisal’s critics will seize upon any action — questionable or not — to attack the people they loathe. I’ll give Greg credit for at least doing so in his own name. The likes of the anonymous/pseudonymous types who pretend to be authorities on, well, much of anything are beneath contempt. He certainly owes them no explanation, or to Democrats like Jonathan Mark.

  63. Loudoun Insider said on 24 Apr 2007 at 7:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Headley, as I responded to you at NLS, this is not about simply supporting a candidiate, but about a legislative district chair taking money from a candidate in a contested race. It’s a huge difference, and stinks no matter who does it or what their politics are. On most issues I am certain I agree with most ultra conservatives, I simply believe that we should win on the strnght of our ideas, not manipulation and subterfuge.

    As to your taking the Kopko line on blogosphere anonymity/peseudonymity - get over it. I’ve explained myself ad nauseum about this on TC, and trust me, I am no shrinking violet and will gladly tell you all of this should we ever meet. Why have you come out of the King George woodwork to get involved in PWC politics?

  64. James Young said on 24 Apr 2007 at 9:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Why have you come out of the King George woodwork to get involved in PWC politics?”

    Perhaps Headley recognizes a sleazy smear campaign when he sees one.

  65. James Young said on 24 Apr 2007 at 9:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    ‘Course, one might ask the same question of Loudmouthed Nihilist… er, “Loudoun Insider”: Why have you crawled out from under your Loudoun rock to get involved in PWC politics?

  66. Greg L said on 24 Apr 2007 at 9:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    OK, folks, let’s try to play a little nicer. That point can be made without having to get mean.

    Besides, I comment on Loudoun, Fairfax and sometimes even Stafford and Fauquier politics. I’m not sure if you’ve commented on other jurisdictions, but it’s not like LI is doing something out of the ordinary. It is a little unusual for someone from King George to visit, though. It’s not like there’s a lot of shared districts, or coordination between PWC and King George and I can understand the question he raised. I don’t think I’ve ever seen comments from someone in King George here before.

  67. The Skeptic said on 24 Apr 2007 at 10:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg L. the point is that people should always speak the truth to all. Say what they mean and mean what they say, all of the time and no matter to whom they are speaking, regardless of race or religion. Anything less lacks integrity. Organizing an event or a project well, reflects a sense of pride. Don’t confuse that with trust. Keep your eyes wide open and never forget you have something she needs.

    As for Kopko, he needs an old “GOP” wise man to take him under his wing. Kopko is the kind of guy that will refuse to stop and ask for directions if he is lost. Slap his hand, tell him to pay closer attention next time or he will be kicked out.

  68. anon said on 24 Apr 2007 at 11:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Headley seems to struggle with reading comprehension. I feel for his district.

    Everyone KNEW Kopko supported Gill for the nomination. The shocking thing was that Kopko took money FROM Gill before receiving the nomination.

    Kopko didn’t GIVE money to Gill. (A party member giving a donation to a candidate happens all the time.) INSTEAD, the chairman TOOK money from a candidate - before the party nominations were even closed. And then, supposedly completely innocently, made a decision which benefitted the candidate who gave him money. Quid pro quo?

  69. Jonathan Mark said on 25 Apr 2007 at 7:48 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"the hate campaign being waged here against Faisal…The likes of the anonymous/pseudonymous types who pretend to be authorities on, well, much of anything are beneath contempt.”"”

    Apparently it is okay to hate Faisal’s critics, however.

  70. Batson D. Belfrey said on 25 Apr 2007 at 10:44 am:
    Flag comment

    Funny how James Young finally comments on a race other than that of one of his blood-brothers. However, he does so defending one of his blood-brothers. Has James commented on the Sheriff’s race at all. Nothing regarding the smears coming from Messier/Former Stoffregen supporter (there appears to be only one). Nothing about the continued confiscation of illegal badges, issued by the then-Sheriff in exchange for campaign donations. Nothing about the reported attempt to bribe the PWCGOP with $10K by Messier.

    You would think that James Young, with his brilliant slip-and-fall attorney’s mind would be all over this. Maybe he’s a little busy trying to find his Darth Vader costume and re-capture some of his younger-day glory?

  71. James Young said on 25 Apr 2007 at 10:56 am:
    Flag comment

    As my comment clearly says — to paraphrase Peggy Noonan — I don’t hate you, Jonathan. I hold you in contempt (or “beneath contempt,” to be completely accurate). There’s a difference.

  72. Jonathan Mark said on 25 Apr 2007 at 12:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    It is ironic that you quote Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan to support the nomination of former American Muslim Council chief lobbyist Faisal Gill for Delegate.

    Peggy Noonan has always, absolutely, opposed the spread of terrorism and terrorist supporting organizations to America. The AMC, founded and headed by the imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi, was a terrorist supporting organization.

    Here is what Alamoudi, while a leader of the AMC, said about Hamas:

    “On June 2, 2000, the U.S.-based al-Zaitounah newspaper interviewed Alamoudi in English on his pro-Hamas activities at the AMC. “Our position with regard to the peace process is well-known,” he said. “We are the ones who went to the White House and defended what is called Hamas.” According to the Jerusalem Post, Alamoudi attended a leadership conference in Beirut in January 2001 along with top leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda. These and other Alamoudi actions and statements were cited by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Brett Gentrup in a September 2003 affidavit in support of Alamoudi’s arrest. ” Kenneth Timmerman, “Saffuri’s Ties To Terror Suspects,” Insight On The News, 3/1/2004, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_March_1/ai_113363777

    James Young and Faisal Gill have never come clean on the exact dates when Gill was working as the AMCs chief lobbyist. Was the lobbyist Gill the one who on behalf of his employer the AMC “went to the White House and defended what is called Hamas.”

    The irony is that James Young spews hatred (he thinks of his venom as “contempt,” towards those of us who tell the truth about Faisal Gill, backing up what we say with sources and facts.

    Yet at the same time as Young attacks truth-tellers he complains about “the hate campaign being waged here against Faisal.”

    I used to think that Faisal was the problem, and he was deluding his supporters. I think the problem is bigger than that. The process and the leadership that resulted in Cuccinelli ($15,900 in Faisal-directed donations from Safa Group), Bolling ($14,000 in donations from Gill himself), Lingamfelter ($500 donation a.k.a. speaking fee from the Gill campaign), Stewart et al endorsing THIS MOST UNFIT OF CANDIDATES is extremely flawed.

    Go ahead and nominate Gill if you can, James Young. There will be a train wreck in November if you do. No matter what happens in June, you and Gill’s other jihad-enablers will lose.

  73. James Young said on 25 Apr 2007 at 11:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Come clean,” Democrat Jonathan? I’ve got nothing to “come clean” about, since your rather ham-handed effort to smear me as being involved with terrorists is so outrageous as to be consistent with most of your nonsense. Given the outcome of investigations provoked by political enemies, I doubt that Faisal does, either. I only know him as a friend and political ally; I hardly know or am responsible for every detailed aspect of his long and fairly distinguished career. “Guilt by association” has never been adequately damning by my standards. Isn’t it funny how the Left rails against “McCarthyism,” until it becomes a useful tool against their poltiical enemies?

    “Blood-brothers,” “Batson”? “Finally comments”? As to the former, yes, I am disgusted for the nonsense that frequently passes for “discussion” around here. Just as I think that the smears of the far Left should not go unanswered, I also believe that the smears of the nihilistic far-Left-masquerading-as-Republicans/Conservatives (because they know the electoral consequences of revealing themselves) should not go unanswered. The Goebbels school of political propaganda (”Repeat the ‘Big Lie’ frequently) has many adherents here. But “blood-brothers”?!?!? Hardly. Friends? Political allies? To be sure.

    It’s really rather funny. Faisal Gill is not the stereotypical white, Christian man, so he can’t be attacked as a member of the “Christian Right.” Instead, he is — religiously and ethnically — a rather atypical Republican candidate, who therefore cannot be smeared with the standard anti-Christian rhetoric of the far Left, and who nevertheless is a principled Conservative. He has worn his country’s uniform, served in a Republican presidential administration, and chooses to educate his children in identifiably Christian schools. Excepting the cloudcuckooland of those who fear attacking him for his political positions — thereby revealing themselves to be other than Conservatives and therefore not worthy of attention in a GOP nominating contest — he should be a poster boy refuting many who attack the GOP as “far right,” “too Christian,” “racist,” and “all-white.”

    As to the “finally comments” line, in case you have forgotten, Greg wouldn’t even allow to READ his website, much less comment, until recently How is it that I was supposed to have commented about another race? Not that I expect Greg to jump to MY defense (Greg L said on 24 Apr 2007 at 9:33 pm:) when you make silly, ill-informed, and nonsensical assertions such as your jibe as a “slip-and-fall lawyer.”

    I guess its gratifying to engage in ill-informed, personal attacks against your betters from behind the safety of a pseudonym. A man, on the other hand, accepts the consequences of his behavior. You’re no better than the scum who litters our landscape with graffiti.

  74. anon said on 25 Apr 2007 at 11:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Is there something untoward in having the forms etc. go to Kopko’s house?

    Is the poll question related to Kopko’s actions in general or to the requirement that materials be sent to his house?

    I guess I’m confused because I didn’t notice the update or the poll until just now and I can’t tell if they are related or separate.

  75. Jonathan Mark said on 26 Apr 2007 at 6:11 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"I’ve got nothing to “come clean” about,”"”

    You are telling BVBL readers to vote for Faisal Gill, but you are silent on when he started working for the terrorist-founded and terrorist-led American Muslim Council. That is what you need to come clean about.

    “”"since your rather ham-handed effort to smear me as being involved with terrorists”"”

    You are promoting the candidacy of Faisal Gill, a former chief lobbyist for a terrorist, namely, Abdurahman Alamoudi.

    “”"Given the outcome of investigations provoked by political enemies,”"”

    Which enemies? Tell us more! You need to come clean on that also. Tell us the name of a political enemy who provoked an investigation of Faisal Gill. Tell us one name.

    Gill was the chief lobbyist for an in part Libyan-funded extremist organization, the American Muslim Council, founded and led by the now-convicted terrorist and Libyan secret agent Abdurahman Alamoudi. James Young should tell us more about the investigation which he falsely says cleared Gill of the above proven facts.

    “”"I hardly know or am responsible for every detailed aspect of his long and fairly distinguished career.”"”

    It wasn’t very distinguished in 2001 and perhaps at other times, when Gill worked for an organization founded, funded and run by a now-imprisoned Libyan secret agent.

    Young is telling BVBL readers that they should vote for Faisal Gill. Gill is applying for a job, and there is a hole in Gill’s resume. Specifically, when did Gill first start working for the imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, and when did Gill last stop?

    “”"“Guilt by association” has never been adequately damning”"”

    However, this is guilt by employment–Gill’s employment as a lobbyist/chief lobbyist for the American Muslim Council.

    Faisal Gill was the lobbyist for an organization, the American Muslim Council whose terrorist leader said in June 2000: ““Our position with regard to the peace process is well-known,” he said. “We are the ones who went to the White House and defended what is called Hamas.”

    That was the job of the AMCs chief lobbyist, to lobby for the AMCs positions. Alamoudi said that his group, Gill’s employer, lobbied for Hamas in the White House. Did Gill their chief lobbyist lobby for Hamas?

    James Young is embarrassed by these facts, so he resorts to calling it guilt by association. It is guilt by employment.

    Young then continues with more harping on his theme that those who oppose Gill are prejudiced. Al Sharpton could not do a better job of playing the race card than James Young does.

  76. Batson D. Belfrey said on 26 Apr 2007 at 8:11 am:
    Flag comment

    James Young,

    You are indeed blood-brother to Kopko, Gill, and Chapman. Even when presented with the facts, you continue to defend these clowns. When asked legitimate questions regarding their fitness to serve, you rarely if ever answer, and instead choose to attack those doing the asking. The only threads that you ever comment on this and several other blogs, seem to be only those which are critical of your blood-brothers. You will defend them to the end. Funny that you mention Goebbels. It is you who chooses to remain in the bunker with individuals like these, long after the battle is lost. It is you who is the true fanatic.

    Your “friends and political allies” are destroying the PWCGOP with their lust for power. They try ontrol the process with shadey, unethical tactics that they need use, because they are substandard candidates. They are selfish people, who put their own desires ahead of the good of the party. Perception counts in politics, and you know this.

    I’ll spell it out for you:

    Kopko looks like a crook.

    Chapman looks like an idiot.

    Gill looks like a terrorist sympathizer.

    But, I know that I will never change your mind, for you are indeed a blood-brother to this group.

  77. Curious George said on 26 Apr 2007 at 8:18 am:
    Flag comment

    Response for “The Skeptic”. Concerning your comments about K.Ulrich- Ever watch old SNL? OK picture me as Dan Akroyd and you as Jane. Skeptic, you ignorant … valley girl! “Puhhhhleeeze” and your references to “boys club” give you away as the “totally awesome valley girl of the PWRC” that you are. A merely jealous over-aged teenager resorting to; name calling, pointless gossip without any truth or basis of fact whatsoever, and worst of all shamelessly performing the equivelant of mental masturbation for your own pleasure on a conservative blog where NO ONE is childish enough to actually regard you rant with any legitimacy whatsoever! Oh and by the way, I make mistakes also, I am not perfect either, but just for your information “to” does not refer to a number, you missed that day in grade school english so we all understand. Take some really deep breaths, and go shopping, that should calm you down enough to pull yourself together enough to try the blog again under a different name, and this time THINK, and do something honorable, speak the truth, only the truth.
    On your response to “GregL”. Wrong again valley girl, you are giving advice? You lost me at “slime bag”. I’ve given you more time and thought than you deserve.

    K.Ulrich is truly and honestly a sincere and hard working Republican who has done allot for the party and for candidates. She has earned more respect than one whiny valley girl could ever taint. The Skeptic comments are like an annoying little fly, easily smashed.

    On KOPKO; Tom has earned respect and is in my opinion a true leader. He can put this whole mistake behind him, (the appearance of corruption is a mistake in judgement) by turning over the 51st to someone else. We need his leadership at the helm, and we can believe that he won’t let the appearance of corruption happen again.
    The larger mistake was by Faisal Gill. Why would you even offer something like contract consulting work to the chairman of the PWRC after deciding to run as an elected official. DUH..you obviously don’t care much about Tom! -Curious George

  78. Batson D. Belfrey said on 26 Apr 2007 at 8:57 am:
    Flag comment

    “Is there something untoward in having the forms etc. go to Kopko’s house?”

    Yes. Very. How can you trust someone who is on the payroll of one candidate, to collect the forms of delegates who would support the other. “I never recieved their filing forms”….

  79. James Young said on 26 Apr 2007 at 9:18 am:
    Flag comment

    Well, I guess “Batson” has telegraphed the “party line” if Julie Lucas doesn’t win the nomination.

    The more we see from this unidentified clown, the more it becomes clear that he is simply a Democrat. Always question the integrity of those entrusted to run the process. Challenge the process itself. And never, ever, concede that your candidate might have lost fair and square. These have been principles of the Democrat mantra since about early November 2000.

  80. Batson D. Belfrey said on 26 Apr 2007 at 10:13 am:
    Flag comment

    Well, I guess mister slip-and-fall telegraphed the “group-B line” if Gill wins the nomination.

    The more we see from this Darth Vader suit wearing, public nose-picking clown, the more it becomes clear that he is simply a fanatical idiot. Always question the intentions of those who criticize sub-standard candidates and crooked leaders who are running the process itself. And never, ever, conceed that your candidates are ethically challenged, have no shame, and believe that we should just shut-up and accept them at their word they are the right choice, when actions and history would indicate otherwise. These have been the principles of the Kopko, Chapman, Gill crowd since about early November 2000.

  81. anon said on 26 Apr 2007 at 10:22 am:
    Flag comment

    I guess I should have worded my question differently. I can certainly see the possibility of the appearance of impropriety in the forms arriving at Kopko’s house. I really wondered if, in general, it was common to have the forms go to the Chairman’s house.

    I was just thinking that if Tom really didn’t think that he did anything that could be perceived as inappropriate, then it would be natural, if this was the normal process, for him to have the forms sent to his house. Of course, that is no proof at all regarding what was in his mind, because if he IS a bad egg (not saying he is), then the opportunity for them to come to his house is just another bonus.

    There will be further evidence of the appearance of impropriety IF there is even one application from a Lucas supporter that doesn’t “arrive” at Kopko’s house.

    It is unfortunate, at the least, that he has put himself in the position of having his integrity questioned. Better judgment could have prevented this.

  82. James Young said on 26 Apr 2007 at 12:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    More smears from “Batson.” Still no warning to him, Greg? Nice double standard. Is that why I was banned before? Because you hate response in kind to your allies? It must be just so darn embarrassing to have your double standard exposed like that.

    “Batson” must be a government employee (maybe in the Probation Office?), and a low-level one at that. After all, how else does one explain his fanatical yet cowardly attacks on his betters? Other than the profound jealousy of one who, having realized he possesses no marketable skills, had to go to the one sector of society with virtually no responsiblity to produce much of anything.

    And having the filing forms go to Kopko’s house is only untoward in the sick minds of some of those here. Yes, the Committee does maintain a mail box … in Manassas. History — which the wise and experienced know, and of which officious intermeddlers like “Batson” remain blissfully ignorant — has demonstrated that, unless it is checked every day, which is virtually impossible unless the Chairman lives very near to the Manassas Post Office, it quickly fills up, requiring postal employees to put filing forms aside, and increasing the chances that one would become legitimately lost. Kopko’s decision to have them mailed to his home is entirely reasonable and understandable, except to those who would dispute even his observation that the sky is blue.

  83. anon said on 26 Apr 2007 at 3:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    I would agree that a postal box in Manassas is extremely inconvenient. Postal service at the headquarters does not seem like a better idea either because that still involves travel of some distance for various officeholders and also opens up the possibility of the random member retrieving the mail and setting it inside goodness knows where.

    Is it fairly common for people who don’t live near Manassas to have the mail go to their home? It certainly does seem to be the most convenient method. Thinking further along these lines, if Kopko was predisposed to “loosing” forms, that could just as easily be accomplished if the forms were sent to the Manassas mailbox as I am certain a record of all incoming mail is certainly not kept.

    After looking at this from all sides, I’ve come to the conclusion that I see no specific downside in having the materials arrive at Mr. Kopko’s house as opposed to the materials arriving at the Manassas mailbox.

    I still remain convinced, however, that it was extraordinarily bad judgment, at the least, to have taken a consulting fee from a candidate before nominations had closed.

  84. Batson D. Belfrey said on 26 Apr 2007 at 3:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    ““Batson” must be a government employee (maybe in the Probation Office?), and a low-level one at that.”

    Yep, you got me Jimbo. You found me out. You know who I am. Do you still have the Darth Vader costume? Did you pick a winner yet?

    Please explain to us the reason why the PO box is in Manassas? What, theres no PO box available in Woodbridge?

  85. Greg L said on 26 Apr 2007 at 3:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh, yes, how inconvenient it must be to have 200 members in a committee, some of whom work in close proximity to that post office, and whom likely visit it on a daily basis, come and check that PO Box. And it must be terribly inconvenient to obtain a post office box large enough to accommodate the amount of mail that would arrive during delegate filing periods which would allow for one of these local persons to get that mail if daily visits are not possible.

    I can’t imagine how Help Save Manassas manages to overcome this burdensome inconvenience so easily when it currently has fewer members than than county committee.

    We’re really grasping for straws on this one.

  86. James Young said on 26 Apr 2007 at 5:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    The PO box has been in Manassas since about 1991, when the County Committee was organized. It’s still there as a result of inertia, probably, more than anything.

    And it’s really too bad that Greg has cowardly posters like “Batson” (apparently hit that nail right on the head; your tax dollars at work) who’ve never matured beyond childish college — high school, really — antics, and have to attack their betters because of the miserable wrecks that are their own lives.

  87. Jonathan Mark said on 26 Apr 2007 at 5:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Does Kopko also receive PWCRC checks in his home? What if someone sent in a donation to the PWCRC, and Kopko mistook it for a payoff from Gill and cashed it into his own personal account?

    Commingling Republican Party correspondence and payoffs from office-seekers is a very dangerous practice. A well run organization has procedures for proper handling of money and legal papers. And then there are those organizations where the Maximum Leader gets all that stuff mailed to his home, and who are you to question the integrity of the Maximum Leader?

  88. AWCheney said on 26 Apr 2007 at 6:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon, I would think that, if it were to be more “convenient” to have delegate filings sent to a home address, that address should have been the convention chairman of the Credintials Committee…who is ULTIMATELY responsible for any improprieties in delegate registration. Logically, if it appears that Delegate filings have become misplaced, credentials will be held responsible.

  89. John C. Headley said on 26 Apr 2007 at 6:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dear LI, or is that Lie?

    It does not take a rocket scientist to make the point that someone who will not give one’s true name but demeans others is in fact cowardly.

    I am willing to stand on my record and be known by my neighbors. Of course, you would expect that from office-holders right? Too bad you don’t live by your own standards. While you might have already explained it, your staying with your decision continues to lessen your standing with me.

    Chairman Kokpo is a colleague on many committee’s that I serve. Having watched blogs for some time I decided to join in.

    John C. Headley
    King George Republican Committee Chairman

  90. anon said on 26 Apr 2007 at 7:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg et. al,

    When I wrote my post at 11:59, 10:22, 3:12, I was unaware that every member of the committee could stop by the post office office and pick up the mail for the committee. Is that seriously correct? That sounds like a VERY bad idea.

    How has this been handled in the past? Have the forms been mailed to the chairman or the credentialing chairman before?

    It just seems to me that if Kopko is predisposed to “conveniently” not receiving forms, that would be equally easy to do whether the mail came to the post office or to his house. It would also be as easy to do if there was a big giant box at the post office.

    I’m sorry, but some of you are so pent up in your irritation for Kopko that you are not looking at this logically and rationally. All along on this thread and others I have been completely, unabashedly, unsupportive of the moves that Kopko has made (if I used a handle other than anon, perhaps that would be apparent, as I am not the same anon as early in this thread). I can’t really say that I agree wholeheartedly with this decision either. But the reality is that if he is the kind of guy who is going to make forms disappear, he can do that no matter where the post office delivers them - except of course as AW Cheney notes, if they went to someone completely different than him or to a place which he did not have access.

  91. freedom said on 26 Apr 2007 at 7:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    It seems to me that there are several avenues the Chairman could insist upon to absolve himself of even the slightest chance of suspicion concerning the handling of delegate forms…and surely this is NOT a “first time” that this issue has arisen. A PO box specifically designated for the credentials committee just might be a good way to go…but of course a little “serious thought” by those interested in the guarantee of equity might come up with an even better approach.

    …and on the issue of accepting consultant fees…whether it’s allowable or not is immaterial, doesn’t it make good sense for the Chairman of the Committee to refuse any/all fees from ALL candidates, simply to avoid the appearance of impropriety?

    After all, I would expect the Chairman of the Committee to support/not support all party candidates equitably prior to the nomination…and then, following the convention/primary (whatever) to help the nominee (including acceptance of fees if required) in defeating the other party’s candidate. How difficult is that to understand and accept? Am I missing something here?

  92. CONVA said on 26 Apr 2007 at 7:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    In the past the forms were sent to the P.O. box and to my knowledge there was not a problem. Of course with this crew everything is a problem.

  93. Greg L said on 26 Apr 2007 at 8:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anyone who has been given a key by Tom Kopko could go and pick up the mail. I’ve done it before. The point here is that there’s no real reason why the PO Box cannot be used, and claiming that there was some real and substantial reason for forms being mailed to someone’s house just doesn’t hold water.

  94. AWCheney said on 26 Apr 2007 at 9:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    “More smears from “Batson.” Still no warning to him, Greg? Nice double standard. Is that why I was banned before? Because you hate response in kind to your allies? It must be just so darn embarrassing to have your double standard exposed like that.”

    What double standard?:

    “And it’s really too bad that Greg has cowardly posters like “Batson” (apparently hit that nail right on the head; your tax dollars at work) who’ve never matured beyond childish college — high school, really — antics, and have to attack their betters because of the miserable wrecks that are their own lives.” (JY, 5:43 PM, 4/26)

    ““Batson” must be a government employee (maybe in the Probation Office?), and a low-level one at that. After all, how else does one explain his fanatical yet cowardly attacks on his betters? Other than the profound jealousy of one who, having realized he possesses no marketable skills, had to go to the one sector of society with virtually no responsiblity to produce much of anything.” (JY, 12:49 PM, 4/26)

    “The more we see from this unidentified clown, the more it becomes clear that he is simply a Democrat.” (JY, 9:18 AM, 4/26)

    “‘Course, one might ask the same question of Loudmouthed Nihilist… er, “Loudoun Insider”: Why have you crawled out from under your Loudoun rock to get involved in PWC politics?” (JY, 9:28 PM, 4/24)

    “You chose your euphemism, Loudmouthed Nihilist. It’s standard practice on the Left (i.e., “fair share fees” for forced union dues). I prefer accuracy.” (JY, 6:54 PM, 4/24)

    “Let’s see: a unit chairman with a record who puts his name on his comments vs. a sanctimonious, cowardly a-hole whose tactics differ not at all from someone seeking to destroy the GOP.

    Guess this round goes to Loudmouth Nihilist … er, “Loudoun Insider”!” (JY, 9:49 PM, 4/23)

    These are just the highlights. I’d say that Greg has shown enormous restraint…not a double standard.

  95. Batson D. Belfrey said on 26 Apr 2007 at 10:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    “And it’s really too bad that Greg has cowardly posters like “Batson” (apparently hit that nail right on the head; your tax dollars at work) who’ve never matured beyond childish college — high school, really — antics, and have to attack their betters because of the miserable wrecks that are their own lives.”

    Jimbo, It is I who has hit the nail on the head (Darth Vader at work).

  96. The Skeptic said on 26 Apr 2007 at 10:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    The only thing Kopko is guilty of is being a rookie Chairman. He is a passionate conservate and after what we have seen on the Prince William School Board it is questionable if Lucas can hold true to fiscally conservative values. So we know who Kopko supports, so what!

    With all the comments on this blog no one has found any evidence that Kopko broke any rules. Writing ad copy for a mail piece is no 1 hour task, it can take days of re-writes to get the message right. Gill’s mailers hit the nail on the head on conservative values and on January 5th many of us would welcome a $1,000 to help pay off Christmas debt.

    Batson is simply amusing himself by stirring things up, Ulrich’s comment that “Kopko is a committee of 1″ is completely unfair.

    Can anyone prove that Kopko broke any rules?

  97. charles said on 26 Apr 2007 at 11:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    Karen:

    Since you have accepted the help of this blog, does that mean that your candidate stands behind the charges made by this blog?

    I respect Julie, and expect her to run a decent campaign. Your solicitation of help from this blog casts doubt on those impressions.

  98. AWCheney said on 26 Apr 2007 at 11:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    If you are talking about “laws,” probably not because this is an internal political party matter. If you are talking “party rules,” probably not because I don’t think anyone thought someone in a position of party leadership could be stupid enough to accept money in this kind of a situation and then get caught. Now, if you want to ask about ethics, that’s a no-brainer…there is absolutely nothing ethical about what Tom Kopko did and it should raise questions about what else he may have done without getting caught. That’s the real issue here, isn’t it? If you want to sweep it away by attributing it to naiveté…how many other times has he been naive?

  99. charles said on 26 Apr 2007 at 11:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    BB: So far as I know, this is the first time I’ve read this blog since the last random comment I made here. It’s not high on m list of things at this time.

    From the post: (GREG L): “On January 4th, Julie Lucas asked Tom for a primary to decide the means of nomination”

    From a comment by GREG L: “Tom asked Julie what method of nomination she preferred as a candidate on January 4th.”

    While those two comments are not contradictory, the first suggests a much different reality than the 2nd. The first is written to suggest that Julie made an unsolicited request to Tom, which would naturally be interpreted as her announcing her intention to run.

    The second reveals a chairman covering all the bases before making a decision which had to be made before all candidates could announce.

    If the absurd charge that he picked a convention because of money were true, he could have simply picked a convention, he had no need to consult with any candidates, announced or otherwise.

    He solicited her input before making the appropriate decision to have a convention. I don’t know why he asked, since it would be absurd not to use a convention when possible, especially since we can’t control who votes in primaries.

    as to Tom being a paid consultant, all I can say is, what did you expect? Tom is a political operative, and has been a paid campaign consultant for years. He has had positions on multiple campaigns, including people associated with Faisal Gill.

    When we voted for chair last year, we knew that if we picked Tom we would get a person who might well run for office during his term, and who would support candidates of his choice. This was the downside of picking Tom, and those who decided to vote for him anyway should not be surprised that he would be a paid consultant to a campaign.

    This is the kind of question voters should have asked both candidates before making their decision. I sent e-mails, I talked, I got the answers to all my questions before voting, and in some cases I was very dissappointed in the answers. I wanted a chair who would commit to not quitting in the middle of the term, for example.

    So, while I wish my chair did not take money, and I’m glad he was asked to explain himself at the meeting, it didn’t surprise me.

    For those who are upset with being paid for service, I ask: Wouldn’t it still be the same issue of “unfairness” to the other candidate if he had worked as a volunteer for Gill? Or even announced his support for Gill? There are two issues here, one is whether a chair should ever accept money for political service, and one whether a chair should be involved in a primary contest.

    I suspect it’s that 2nd thing that is the problem (it’s the problem for me, not the money). The money I think is just a way to make it sound like a bribe, which was just a scurilous invention.

    You might occasionally get more support for legitimate complaints if it wasn’t always accompanied by ludicrous and laughable nonsense like “Tom took a bribe to choose a convention”. Anybody with a brain knows Tom’s chosing a convention every time. There’s no “appearance” of impropriety — if he had chosen a primary that might have raised questions.

    BTW, the idea that choosing the convention “favors” a candidate is a separate issue from which choice the candidates would make. You could assume I guess that Lucas would prefer a primary, since she’s won elections in the area she would benefit from crossover votes for example. In that sense, a convention might be more FAIR than a primary for our two nominees. In other words, maybe a convention “helps” Gill only by making the playing field level.

    In what way if Lucas put at a disadvantage by a convention? Both candidates have volunteers to hit the streets and drum up support, both candidates have to talk to the SAME voters and get their delegate to show up at the SAME place at the SAME time. Lucas is a very personable candidate, with lots of support and good name recognition in the area. She’s got lots of good grass-roots people working for her. She shouldn’t have any trouble getting delegates.

    OK, you can go back to whatever it is you do here….

  100. AWCheney said on 26 Apr 2007 at 11:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Charles, you’re turning into a real dork.

  101. Greg L said on 26 Apr 2007 at 11:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    In regards to the 51st District committee, the fact is that Tom Kopko IS a committee of one, by the RPV party plan.

  102. AWCheney said on 26 Apr 2007 at 11:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anyone has a right to comment and offer their opinions here or anywhere else…even you. What “help” are you talking about??!

  103. Jonathan Mark said on 26 Apr 2007 at 11:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"it is questionable if Lucas can hold true to fiscally conservative values.”"”

    “”"many of us would welcome a $1,000 to help pay off Christmas debt.”"”

    If Kopko was going into debt to buy Christmas presents then we know that he doesn’t hold true to fiscally conservative values.

  104. AWCheney said on 26 Apr 2007 at 11:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    To clarify, because my comments appeared out of sequence: Comments at 11:31 pm and 11:33 pm references Charles’ comment regarding Karen Ulrich (grossly unfair) and comment at 11:20 pm is in response to Skeptic’s question at 10:30 pm.

  105. charles said on 26 Apr 2007 at 11:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    JM said:

    “Does Kopko also receive PWCRC checks in his home? What if someone sent in a donation to the PWCRC, and Kopko mistook it for a payoff from Gill and cashed it into his own personal account?”

    “Commingling Republican Party correspondence and payoffs from office-seekers is a very dangerous practice. A well run organization has procedures for proper handling of money and legal papers. And then there are those organizations where the Maximum Leader gets all that stuff mailed to his home, and who are you to question the integrity of the Maximum Leader?”

    Greg, the comments you allow reveal your character. JM’s post is a libelous screed woven out of whole cloth, and you know it. You got all righteous and bloviated about “almost deleting” a post for simply expressing a persona opinion about Karen.

    Here JM presents an opinion of criminal activity and unethical action of a fellow republican, without any basis of fact and in opposition to all that is known. And you don’t say a word about it — I suppose because he supports your positions on issues. It’s nice to see what the price is for your “indignation”.

    Greg, YOU said that we had 200 members who could go get the mail. I hope you realise that was stupid. Which one would have access? Would it be a “gill” supporter, or a “lucas” supporter, or some independent 3rd party? As stupid as the suggestion that our elected party chair shouldn’t be trusted to do his official work, to then say it would be BETTER to have hundreds of people have access to the mail is absurd.

    If the candidates want, they can have all the forms mailed to their own people. They can aggregate them, count them, and deliver them. That’s probably what Gill is doing, and likely what Lucas is doing. The only forms mailed directly are probably from people NOT drafted to support one or the other.

    The forms don’t identify loyalty either, so it’s not like someone could throw them out on that basis — of course, if you don’t trust the committee officers to perform their jobs ethically, we’ve got bigger problems than where official paperwork is being sent.

    I just did my delegate form for another race, and gave it to a 3rd party to deliver to the candidate, who sent me a letter acknowledging receipt and saying it would be delivered to the chair of that convention. Simple, but in the end it ends up with the convention chair.

  106. charles said on 27 Apr 2007 at 12:06 am:
    Flag comment

    To the suggestion that the forms get sent to the chair of the conventions committee:

    I don’t think there is a chair yet. Normally that committee is put together after the campaigns get going, since every campaign wants a representative.

    But suppose there is one, and they support a candidate. Don’t we end up right back where we started, with the mail going to one person who favors one of the candidates? It’s not like you can mail them to the entire committee.

    Fact is, if you think everybody is crooked, you can’t make this work. You have to start by electing people you trust to be honest, and then making the process transparent and providing mechanisms for oversight. All those things exist here.

    We even have a process for handling questions of fairness, called appealing to the RPV. Lucas can do this at any time, as can Gill.

    Still, we are left with little. Gill announced as a candidate, he had campaign-related activity for which he valued Tom’s expertise, and he paid Tom for that service. Tom took the money and provided the service. Tom picked a convention, which is the right choice and what you would expect from Tom. The convention forms go to the convention chair, which is exactly where you’d expect.

    A lot of us don’t like our campaign chair to support candidates in nominations, but we are in the minority, and most party activists laugh at our naivete. Some of us find it equally distasteful for the chair to be paid to work for a candidate, although I see that as more of the same with support.

    But to jump from our dislike of the process, to charges of bribes, favoritism, and voter fraud is absurd, but what I expect from this blog. Not because those here are too stupid to know how stupid their arguments are, but because they are smart enough to know how stupid it is and are just being political operatives without principle. (which I’m told is pretty much what politics is all about these days, which also sickens me but when I mention that I’m called naive again).

    [Ed note: by the RPV Party plan, since the 51st District is entirely within Prince William County, the Chairman or his designee is the only member of the 51st District Committee. Tom Kopko by default has been the chairman of the 51st District ever since his election as unit chairman.]

  107. Greg L said on 27 Apr 2007 at 12:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Charles, I’m terribly sorry that I can’t sit here every moment and watch comments as they appear on this site. Although it seems to distress you to no end that I might perhaps not be able to closely monitor each and every comment that shows up, there’s nothing I can possibly do that will satisfy both your and James Young’s incessant demands that I give you deference requiring every moment of time I have available.

    If you don’t like it, don’t visit.

    I have a job, a family, research to do for stories, three political websites to manage, a speech to write for Saturday, and an organization to lead that may soon become the largest political organization in the county. Sometimes, rarely, I even have time to take a break. If I fail to acknowledge each and every instance where you feel slighted, I’m sorry, but I’ve got better things to do with my time than assume responsibility for your personal feelings.

  108. Jonathan Mark said on 27 Apr 2007 at 12:23 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"”JM’s post is a libelous”"”

    Truth is an absolute defense against libel.

    “”"screed woven out of whole cloth,”"”

    Show me a false assertion of fact that I made.

    “”"”Here JM presents an opinion of criminal activity”"”

    On the contrary, I do not assert that Kopko violated a law. He is not a government official, and commercial bribery wouldn’t apply either.

    “”"and unethical action”"”

    I consider Kopko’s taking $1000 from Gill to be unethical. Do you think Greg should censor an opinion that someone acted unethically?

    “”"of a fellow republican,”"”

    Perhaps Greg lives in the real world, where both Republicans and Democrats can sometimes behave in an unethical manner.

    “”"without any basis of fact”"”

    So you dispute that Kopko received $1000 from Gill?

    “”"and in opposition to all that is known.”"”

    The rest of the world agrees that Kopko received $1000 from Gill.

  109. AWCheney said on 27 Apr 2007 at 1:12 am:
    Flag comment

    “To the suggestion that the forms get sent to the chair of the conventions committee:

    I don’t think there is a chair yet.”

    Charles, you don’t appear to be reading very carefully…no one suggested anything about sending it to the “chair of the conventions committee.” The suggestion was that, if the filing NEED be sent to a personal residence, it would be more logical to send it to the chairman of the CREDENTIALS committee of that particular convention. It would make sense, yes? They are ultimately responsible for all filings and could get a head start on certification.

  110. AWCheney said on 27 Apr 2007 at 1:14 am:
    Flag comment

    BTW Greg…congrats on breaking 100 comments a few comments back!

  111. Anonymous said on 27 Apr 2007 at 7:56 am:
    Flag comment

    The 2nd half of this thread shows how Tom needs to appoint a Credentials Committee and then let them do their job. Having the forms go to his house is awkward but it really highlights the fact that he has not gotten the admin wheels turning on this event.

  112. Chief said on 27 Apr 2007 at 11:03 am:
    Flag comment

    According to

    http://wwww.vpap.org/cands/cand_vendorslist.cfm?ToKey=COM01317&CycleID=2007&CycleType=Regular

    Faisal Gill paid Tom Kopko $2,000 not $1,000

  113. Greg L said on 27 Apr 2007 at 11:18 am:
    Flag comment

    It’s not uncommon for VPAP to double-count things. The data at SBE says this was $1,000 the last time I looked.

  114. George said on 27 Apr 2007 at 11:25 am:
    Flag comment

    I just noticed that. Gill filed an amended return. Kopko was paid $2,000 for “website design” … Gill has now spent $6,000 on his website.

  115. Jonathan Mark said on 27 Apr 2007 at 11:48 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"Kopko was paid $2,000 for “website design” …”"”

    Is PWCRC Chairman Kopko a professional web designer? Has anyone else besides Gill paid Kopko $2000 for web design services. Could Kopko tell me what table-less design is? AJAX? CSS?

    Methinks that Kopko is not a professional web designer at all, which makes the payment of $2000 to him for these services peculiar?

  116. Batson D. Belfrey said on 27 Apr 2007 at 12:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Tom is a political operative, and has been a paid campaign consultant for years. He has had positions on multiple campaigns, including people associated with Faisal Gill. ”

    Charles,

    I cannot believe that you would actually assert that it is ethical for a ChairMAN of a committee to take money, any money, from a candidate who will face a challenge in a nomination contest, that the ChairMAN is in charge of. I’ll agree. Tom Kopko is a political guy. He’s consulted on campaigns before. But this was before he was Chairman of the 51st HOD, and ChairMAN of the PWCGOP. Once he was elected, he incurred a duty to at least seem impartial. That’s his job. Facilitate the process, not to profit from it. Tom didn’t break any laws tthat I can see, but now the perception is there that he is dirty.

    Another duty of the ChairMAN is to build a strong, unified party. Please tell me how his taking money from Gill will unify the party?

    If you ask me, this little “mis-step” by Kopko will contribute to the continued errosion of the PWCGOP in a big way. If you think that this will somehow help the party, please elighten us, Charles.

  117. anon said on 27 Apr 2007 at 4:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    Was this topic of payment addressed at Monday’s meeting by Kopko or Gill? I believe I recall reading that it was.

    Just curious if there was a dollar amount mentioned on Monday. As of Monday we all thought the amount paid was $1K, now it turns out to be $2K.

    If the amount was stated as $1K at the meeting by anyone and not corrected by Gill/Kopko - or even if the dollar amount was never directly stated - this again would point to unethical behavior. Gill/Kopko KNEW this was all over the web as Kopko receiving $1K. A lie by omission is still a lie.

  118. charles said on 27 Apr 2007 at 5:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    BDB, I made my position clear. I don’t like it, but providing a professional service to a person on the committee who is running a campaign is a business transaction, and to do so before there is an announced challenger is not “unethical”. I wouldn’t do it, and I wish Kopko wouldn’t do it, but frankly it’s not as big a deal to me as announcing SUPPORT for a candidate.

    Note that you can offer services without offering support. For example, I could offer to provide writing services for any republican candidate. Tell me what you want me to write, and I’ll make it sound good. You pay me, I write it. If I ran a printing operation, I could offer to print forms for candidates, and if one took me up on it and paid me I don’t see where that is some ethical problem. If they DIDN’T pay me, and I gave them the service for free, that would be a contribution which would suggest support.

    But it’s clear Kopko supports Gill. Just as in most cases it has been clear who the head of a convention supports. It’s the other candidate’s supporters who always complain about this. In the ill-fated 10th district chair convention, the person in charge of preparing that convention supported one candidate, the person chosen to lead it supported one candidate, and the opposition was bitter about that.

  119. charles said on 27 Apr 2007 at 5:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    AWCheney, I said a total of 3 sentences about Karen, NONE of which were an attack or disgusting. I noted she was accepting the help of BVBL readers, that I respected Julie, and that being tied too closely to the views of this blog would lessen my respect for her.

    You may love this site and how it works because it gores the “right” people, but I don’t like attack politics.

    Greg: My comment wasn’t about anything said about me, it was about JM making false insinuations about Tom Kopko which were much worse than the simple ill-mannered comment another poster made about Karen which you found time to “almost delete” and to write a comment about.

    It’s clear that when you want, you are quite capable of defending republicans against smears by others. Which means that when you don’t, it’s pretty clear that you are happy with the smears, because they are against people you want to be smeared.

    I note you took quite some time to respond to me to explain why you couldn’t “police” the board, when it would have been much easier to note that there was no evidence of any actual criminal activity by Tom.

    But you didn’t.

  120. Greg L said on 27 Apr 2007 at 8:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Who suggested Tom behaved in a manner contrary to law here? I’m not aware of anyone saying such a thing.

    This is getting awfully goofy.

  121. AWCheney said on 27 Apr 2007 at 10:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    “…but I don’t like attack politics.”

    Couldn’t tell that by your comments on this blog, Charles. Your comments here, and elsewhere, have closely come to resemble Jimmy Young’s manner of expression…only with a bit less invective.

  122. James Young said on 28 Apr 2007 at 12:30 am:
    Flag comment

    “Who suggested Tom behaved in a manner contrary to law here?”

    # Anonymous said on 24 Apr 2007 at 7:55 am:

    Greg, Julie needs to file an official complaint with RPVA and Ebert’s office on this asap. We can’t let Kopko and company get away with this.

    # Anonymous said on 24 Apr 2007 at 1:28 pm:

    The facts are starting to pile up against Kopko. What is the over and under that we read in the paper this week that an investigation of Kopko is taken place?

    # Jonathan Mark said on 26 Apr 2007 at 5:48 pm:

    Does Kopko also receive PWCRC checks in his home? What if someone sent in a donation to the PWCRC, and Kopko mistook it for a payoff from Gill and cashed it into his own personal account?

    Commingling Republican Party correspondence and payoffs from office-seekers is a very dangerous practice. A well run organization has procedures for proper handling of money and legal papers. And then there are those organizations where the Maximum Leader gets all that stuff mailed to his home, and who are you to question the integrity of the Maximum Leader?

    At least three instances in this thread, to answer your question, Greg.

  123. Greg L said on 28 Apr 2007 at 1:14 am:
    Flag comment

    A violation of the party plan is hardly a criminal offense. I think it’s quite a stretch to interpret these statements as being allegations of criminal behavior.

  124. Jonathan Mark said on 28 Apr 2007 at 4:07 am:
    Flag comment

    Young didn’t read what I wrote. I stated:

    “”"# Jonathan Mark said on 26 Apr 2007 at 5:48 pm:

    Does Kopko also receive PWCRC checks in his home? “”"

    Quite possibly he does. It is a question. I do not know the answer. What is the answer to this question? James has stated that PWCRC has no post office box and that applications to attend the convention should be mailed to Kopko’s home.

    “”"What if someone sent in a donation to the PWCRC, and Kopko mistook it for a payoff from Gill and cashed it into his own personal account?”"”

    A hypothetical question which demonstrates the dangers of receiving personal checks and PWCRC checks at the same address. Furthermore, a payoff is a quid pro quo. Some quid pro quos are illegal and some are not. If you make a large donation to a congressman then he will meet with you. That is a quid pro quo, very common, and not illegal.

    There is no criminal offense by Kopko here that I am aware of.

    “”"Commingling Republican Party correspondence and payoffs from office-seekers is a very dangerous practice.”"”

    True.

    “”"A well run organization has procedures for proper handling of money and legal papers.”"”

    True.

    “”"And then there are those organizations where the Maximum Leader gets all that stuff mailed to his home, and who are you to question the integrity of the Maximum Leader?”"”

    Not even remotely an assertion of criminal wrongdoing.

  125. Loudoun Insider said on 28 Apr 2007 at 9:44 am:
    Flag comment

    I am sure the Gill defenders see nothing wrong with Paul Wolfowitz and his sweetheart deal for his sweetheart at the World Bank, either, since he is “one of them”.

  126. charles said on 28 Apr 2007 at 2:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    AWCheney, I think you are smarter than that. I’m rough on Greg because of his smear campaign. I give JM a hard time. I don’t call people names, I don’t attack candidates with no evidence, I don’t discuss people’s weight, or use profanity.

    What candidate for office have I attacked on this site? I guess some of what I said about Dion during the special election was a bit on the edge. What commenters here do I attack, other than Greg not for who he is but for what he is saying (and JM of course)?

    I comment on what people DO, not who they are. I try not to question people’s motives, only their actions, except when it becomes clear through repeated acts what the motive is.

    Occasionally, I question people who support the smear campaigns here. Some of us don’t like smear campaigns against anybody, others simply don’t like it if it smears their own candidates, but are happy to use any means at their disposal to attack candidates they don’t like.

  127. charles said on 28 Apr 2007 at 3:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg:

    BDB said early on: ” don’t believe that this was a coincidence, that Gill cut a check to Kopko on the same day that Kopko announced that the nomination would be decided in a convention. ”

    That’s a charge of a bribe. It could be charged as criminal fraud if it was shown that Gill paid Kopko in order to buy his decision for a convention.

    JM is a little more clever. He said “what if Kopko “mistook” a check as a “payoff from Gill” and cashed it.

    If he took money meant for the committee and put it in his personal account, that would be a CRIME, and claiming a “mistake” may or may not get you off, but the ACT is criminal whether you did it by mistake or not. So that’s a charge of criminal activity by JM, couched in a “hypothetical”.

    Further, he asserts in his hypothetical that Gill would be sending payoffs to Kopko. He later tries to say that “payoffs” could be things that are legal, but a check written as a payoff to Kopko wouldn’t be one of those things. The correct word here would be “payment”, “payoff” is meant to imply an illegal transfer of funds in exchange for performing a service. He can pretend now he meant nothing by it, but JM is hardly one to be careless with the words he chooses.

    In any case, whether I could prove he meant a deliberate charge or not, it’s clear he meant to denigrate with his words, and that smear was as unsubstantiated as what you attacked another commenter for earlier.

    But it’s your site, and you can run it anyway you see fit. It’s clear you want to use it to smear republicans that you don’t like. I can only hope our good candidates, both those you support and those you don’t, are wise enough not to associate with this kind of tactic.

  128. James Young said on 28 Apr 2007 at 3:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, Ebert’s office does not investigate violations of any Party’s Plan of Organization; it prosecutes criminal offenses. It is therefore no “stretch to interpret these statements as being allegations of criminal behavior.” Likewise, commingling personal funds with those entrusted to an entity in which one holds a position of trust is embezzlement; never mind the assertion that Kopko has taken “payoffs” from Gill..

  129. Jonathan Mark said on 28 Apr 2007 at 3:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"I give JM a hard time.”"”

    Every single statement of fact that I have made about Faisal Gill has been completely accurate. Charles does not dispute any particular one of them BECAUSE HE CAN’T.

    Faisal was the chief lobbyist for the American Muslim Council, an organization founded and led by the imprisoned terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi. Does Charles deny it?

    Faisal was the chief lobbyist for the AMC in the aftermath of 9-11, when the AMC instructed Moslems not to talk to the FBI. Does Charles deny it?

    The aforementioned Gill client/employer Alamoudi was a Libyan secret agent arrested in London with $340,000 in sequentially marked $100 bills in his suitcase. Some of this fungible money ended up in Gill’s pocket. Does Charles deny it?

    Faisal is awaiting trial on reckless driving charges, one of about five such charges/convictions in this decade. Faisal even had two such charges within ten days of each other. Does Charles deny it?

    Faisal paid Kopko $2000. Does Charles deny it?

  130. charles said on 28 Apr 2007 at 3:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    BTW, in case you don’t trust MY interpretation of what you are saying, here’s how Ben Tribbett interpreted your comments about this. Commenting on your post, he said:

    “There is no acceptable explanation for this. Paul Ebert needs to immediately open an investigation. ”

    Obviously, Ben thinks you are claiming a criminal violation, since Ebert is the PWC attorney, and would not be called to investigate a party issue or an “ethical violation”.

  131. Jonathan Mark said on 28 Apr 2007 at 5:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    I am not responsible for what Ben Tribbett said. Those are his opinions, not mine.

    I have never believed or stated that Kopko has violated the law. You are unable to point to a single, solitary instance in which I claimed that Kopko violated the law. I called his actions unethical.

    Much that is legal is unethical. As I often point out, abortion is legal, but most BVBL readers think them unethical.

  132. Jonathan Mark said on 28 Apr 2007 at 6:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Does James Young know something that I don’t? James Young writes:

    “”"Likewise, commingling personal funds with those entrusted to an entity in which one holds a position of trust is embezzlement; “”"

    Compare that to my statement:

    “”"“””“””What if someone sent in a donation to the PWCRC, and Kopko mistook it for a payoff from Gill and cashed it into his own personal account? Commingling Republican Party correspondence and payoffs from office-seekers is a very dangerous practice.”””

    James Young’s statement is similar to mine. Except that where James Young refers to “embezzlement” I refer to “a very dangerous practice.”

    Unlike me, James Young knows Kopko and Gill. What is James Young implying?

  133. Jonathan Mark said on 29 Apr 2007 at 3:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Further, he asserts in his hypothetical that Gill would be sending payoffs to Kopko. He later tries to say that “payoffs” could be things that are legal, but a check written as a payoff to Kopko wouldn’t be one of those things.”"”

    Even if Gill had said “I will pay you $1000 to nominate me” and Kopko agreed it would probably not be a crime. What would be the crime? It is not commercial bribery. It is not official bribery. Gill and Kopko are private citizens in a private organization.

    “”"The correct word here would be “payment,” “payoff” is meant to imply an illegal transfer of funds in exchange for performing a service.”"”

    Dict.die.net defines payoff as: “2: payment made to a person in a position of trust to corrupt his judgment [syn: bribe]”

    If Gill bribed the little league coach to play his son would that be a crime? There is nothing in the English language that confines the word “payoff” to illegal behavior.

    “”"He can pretend now he meant nothing by it, “”"

    I meant by it what I say I meant, that Kopko’s behavior was unethical. That is hardly nothing.

    “”"but JM is hardly one to be careless with the words he chooses.”"”

    That is a compliment. I will have to be nicer when talking to Gill supporters. They are misguided, not evil.

  134. James Young said on 30 Apr 2007 at 9:37 am:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan, to answer your question, I know lots of things that you don’t. Like when someone is trying to imply something without saying it. You’re just mad because someone recognized and identified it.

    And I know (or strongly suspect) lots that you don’t admit. One has to wonder whether all this sturm und drang is merely your effort to get back into the good graces of the Democrat Party. We know Greg’s motivations.

  135. Jonathan Mark said on 30 Apr 2007 at 10:23 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"Jonathan, to answer your question, I know lots of things that you don’t. Like when someone is trying to imply something without saying it.”"”

    Irrelevant. I was accused of saying it. You at least admit that I did not.

    “”"You’re just mad because someone recognized and identified it.”"”

    I enjoy blogging and am the opposite of mad. I am correcting the record. I never said that Kopko violated the law and do not think he did.

    “”"One has to wonder whether all this sturm und drang is merely your effort to get back into the good graces of the Democrat Party.”"”

    What would that get me?

Comments are closed.


Views: 4337