Deconstructing Claims About Ratcliffe

Four States News - Essays & OpinionsIn political discourse it is often difficult to determine which side of a story to believe. The tendency to distrust all politicians is only slightly stronger than our tendency to take the claims of “our” politician at face value. Negative attacks have a valuable role to play when they illustrate issues that voters need to know about a candidate. Unfortunately, negative attacks that lack substance are often just as effective as those that point out real problems.

Politically nuanced speech is one of the many things that drive a lot of us crazy about politics. It makes it more difficult than it should be to determine if our candidate is taking the fight to the opponent, or simply trying to manipulate us with misleading statements, or by raising the fog of doubt. That difficulty is why we have a responsibility to dig into negative attacks that may look reasonable on the surface.

There is something fundamentally wrong with attempts to manipulate voters with misleading statements and allegations. An unsupported negative attack is not simply an act of aggressive campaigning directed by one candidate toward another – it is a betrayal of the public trust and a sign of disrespect for the very constituents the candidate is asking for the privilege to serve. It is not appropriate, and it is definitely not conservative, for a candidate to maneuver people into doing what he “knows” is best for them.

The charges below are taken directly “as printed” from Lou Gigliotti’s campaign brochure and internet postings. Since Mr. Gigliotti is continuing to publicly assert these charges against John Ratcliffe in support of Ralph Hall in the U.S. congressional runoff for Texas’ 4th district it is worth taking a moment to critically deconstruct the charges  in search of substance:

Charge 1 – “Raised in Chicago”
This will be the only charge in the list that is clearly true and unadulterated. Ironically, the charge is made by a candidate that  is a native New Yorker that has lived just over half of his life outside of Texas. I’d prefer a candidate with Texas roots, but being raised in New York is not a disqualification, and neither is being raised in Chicago. But scary things, like Al Capone and Barack Obama, come from there so we’re supposed to vote against things from Chicago (but not New York).

Charge 2 – “Left Dept. of Justice to join the Ashcroft Group just months after a $52 Million Dollar, no bid Contract, was handed to them, from the same Dept. of Justice.”
Ratcliffe never received a Presidential appointment to the U.S. Attorney position. He served as interim U.S. Attorney following the resignation of Matt Orwig. Upon Rebecca Gregory’s appointment to the position, Ratcliffe went to work in the private sector. The timing of the appointment of Rebecca Gregory had nothing to do with the award of the Zimmer Holdings monitoring contract to Ashcroft. This is a classic political attack intended to create doubts in the minds of voters. “A” happened, then “B” happened, so “B” must have been caused by “A”. It’s a logically nonsensical ploy, but it has proven to be an effective political tool.

Charge 3- “Used his position in the DOJ to punish East Texas employer Pilgrims Pride. Fined them $4.5 million. That comes to 180 full time, high paying, jobs that the 4th district could have had.”
The crucial information left out of this charge is that these fines were penalties resulting from the hiring of hundreds of illegal aliens. The charge that a $4.5 million dollar fine cost hundreds of legal 4th district jobs is just silly. Pilgrim does about $8 billion a year in revenue and employs about 40,000 people. The fine was not significant to the company’s bottom line. These penalties, when coupled with the negative press the company received, encourage the hiring of more legal employees. This action by Ratcliffe is consistent with the type of immigration related enforcement activity that all of the primary challengers supported on the campaign trail. It’s the kind of action that earned Ratcliffe the endorsement of the Minuteman Project.

Charge 4 – “Law Partner is Johnny Sutton, famous for jailing 2 US Border Guards while granting immunity to Mexican Drug Smuggler.”
I personally take issue with the actions of Sutton in this episode, but John Ratcliffe is not Johnny Sutton. None of us want to be held accountable for the actions of our coworkers. John Ratcliffe did not jail Ramos and Campean, or grant immunity to Adrete-Davila for testimony. This is just a political playbook 101 guilt by association charge.

Charge 5 – “Ratcliffe is trying to buy the election.”
All 5 of the primary challengers in this race spent what they could afford. As the candidate that probably spent the least, I could make the charge that any of the others was trying to buy the election. And it would still be nonsense. A campaign worker for one of the other candidates once said to me “If you had a race-car you’d use it too.” I’m not sure about the race-car thing, but I am reasonably confident that if the other candidates had more money to spend, they would have spent more to win the election.

Charge 6 – “It is obvious that Jody does not know about or have concerns about the solid connections that Ratcliffe has to a top 10 Lobbying firm, The Ashcroft Group.”
This is the only charge in the list that doesn’t come from the campaign brochure. The charge was made on-line in response to Texas State Representative Jodie Laubenberg’s endorsement of John Ratcliffe in the runoff. In the age of “Google” charges like this are pretty easy to debunk. There may be some politically nuanced way to twist The Ashcroft Group into a “top 10 Lobbying firm”, but it would be a real stretch. The Ashcroft Group employs one lobbyist (who isn’t John Ratcliffe) and reported less than $200,000 in lobbying activity in 2013 (according to opensecrets.org). They wouldn’t rank among the top 100 lobbying firms. Just for perspective, Texas Instruments (the company I work for) employed 4 full time, and 10 contract lobbyists and had over $1.7 million in 2013 lobbying activity. TI is not a top 10 lobbying firm, and neither is The Ashcroft Group. I’m not a lobbyist, and neither is John Ratcliffe.

Mr. Gigliotti has been clear that his agenda in supporting Congressman Hall is simply to leave his foot in the door to run again in 2016. That clarity is commendable, and it is time to provide clarity to these other statements and accusations. If Mr. Gigliotti has information that the voters of District 4 need to be aware of about John Ratcliffe, it is time to present specific details without the political nuance. We are all better served by information that puts the interests of the voters first, and the politicians last.

About Brent Lawson

Brent Lawson is an Electrical Engineer, a conservative activist, and a former candidate for U.S. Congress representing Texas 4th District.

0 thoughts on “Deconstructing Claims About Ratcliffe

  1. I agree with Lou on this one… I have seen the
    Screen shots on the evidence. Hall has released the same info with the same concerns for Texas. This sounds like a John/ Brent issue of not winning. Question is if Brent is a Conservative then why back John?
    My vote goes to Hall and if Lou wants to run
    again.. Well it still is the land of the Free.
    I have met Lou and he is a true Conservative
    and backed by several Tea Party groups and
    individuals. God bless Texas!

  2. Thanks Sara. That is the type of specific detail I’m asking about. Where can we see the screen shots?

  3. file:///Users/lougigliotti/CONGRESS%20RUN%202014%20/Update:%20Ashcroft%20Forms%20Nationwide%20Law%20Firm%20-%20News%20-%20The%20Ashcroft%20Group.webarchive

    Even his own firm’s web site lists the connection to the “Ashcroft Lobbying firm”

    4.22.09 | Update: Ashcroft Forms Nationwide Law Firm
    JD Journal
    April 22, 2009

    This week we reported that former Attorney General John Ashcroft would found a new law firm.

    Today the move is official. Ashcroft and a group of former federal prosecutors will form the firm, which will carry different names in different cities. The firm will be associated with Ashcroft’s lobbying firm, The Ashcroft Group.

    Former Texas US attorneys Johnny Sutton and John Ratcliffe will work as Ashcroft Sutton & Ratcliffe.Their focus will be corporate compliance, corporate representation, strategic planning and risk management.

    Ratcliffe said that a former US attorney general starting a law firm with former US attorneys has “never been done [before].”

  4. Lobbying Carried Out by Ashcroft Group

    Names Of Lobbyists

    Juleanna Glover Weiss, Susan Richmond Johnson, William Gaynor, Lori Sharpe Day, Tracy Henke, David Ayres, Tyler Alcorn, Susan E. Johnson, Edward Propst, Andrew Schauder,
    Client Amount
    Oracle Corp $1,345,000
    ChoicePoint Inc $465,000
    Alanco Technologies Inc $400,000
    National Assn of Broadcasters $386,000
    Mittal Steel $360,000
    Exegy Inc $320,000
    VeriSign Inc $280,000
    Israel Aircraft Industries $220,000
    New Profit $217,500
    Intelsat General Corp $210,000
    Most Frequently Disclosed Lobbying Issues

    Homeland Security, Government Issues, Finance, Copyright, Patent & Trademark, Education, Labor, Antitrust & Workplace, Environment & Superfund, Science & Technology, Sports & Athletics, Defense
    Most Frequently Disclosed Bills

    Bill No. Title
    H.R.1575 Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2011
    H.R.2471 Economic Development Act of 2005
    S.1066 Economic Development Act of 2005

  5. Chicago is a city, NY is a State, genius. Chicago politics and corruption are well known. I lived in western NY State and worked on a farm as a kid.

    I have lived productively in Texas as a true job creator for the last 30 years, which is much more than you ever did for Texas. You did not choose where you were born but I did choose where I was going to live and raise a family. You got here by accident, I got here by Choice!

    Rartcliffe and Sutton joined the Ashcroft LOBBYING firm on the same day. They both joined as Partners in the LOBBYING FIRM as attorneys. Even John Ashcroft is not a Registered Lobbyist, they have a registered lobbyist who they pay to do the dirty work.

    a candidate does not become a partner with a man like Sutton blindfolded. He knew who he was and where they were both going. They were going to the Ashcroft group that just finished up Congressional hearings with regard to the $52 million dollar No Bid Contract handed to them by CHRIS CHRISTIE who himself was an Ashcroft US Attorney. Funny how that incestuous Money River just happens to happen to a particular group by accident????? NOT! Gee, what about using their own Dept of Justice Lawyers to do the work that they handed Ashcroft $52 million dollars for???

    *** Now here are YOUR WORDS, “There is something fundamentally wrong with attempts to manipulate voters with misleading statements and allegations. An unsupported negative attack is not simply an act of aggressive campaigning directed by one candidate toward another – it is a betrayal of the public trust and a sign of disrespect for the very constituents the candidate is asking for the privilege to serve. It is not appropriate, and it is definitely not conservative, for a candidate to maneuver people into doing what he “knows” is [not] best for them.” ***

    So what you just said actually applies to YOU, not me because I told the truth, you just took Ratcliffe’s word or worse yet, you did not do your own investigation. I had a 3″x5″ space on my Mailer. There was no way to put the “Footnotes” and links in it.

    These DOJ lawyers, ALL of them from the same time period had zero integrity, Christie, Ashcroft, Johnny Sutton, Ratcliffe, they are looking for a new RIVER OF MONEY and using the Congressional seat and a possible Presidency by Christie to fill the pond of money.

    Pilgrims Pride next

  6. The $4.5 Million dollar fine against Pilgrim Pride came when the East Texas employer was found to have 45 illegal aliens in their work force. Each one of the 45 passed the rigorous tests for legality and they all held legal documents. ** The problem came when it was found that these 45 had borrowed documents from legal aliens. They actually Rented the documents from the legal immigrants.

    Pilgrim followed the law but how do you know that Juan is not Jose? How does a company know if juan is renting Jose’s documents? THey don’t but even so, Ratcliffe wanted to make an example of a high profile employer.
    $4.5 million would have supplied 180 jobs at $25,000. IN FACT Pilgrim filed bankruptcy 8 months later.

  7. NOW Brent, let me know when you are going to apologize to me publicly and send that apology out to everyone that you send this garbage to. YOU did to me exactly what you accused me of but in my case, I was telling the truth and you were just making assumptions.

    SO Send the apology as soon as you regain your integrity.

  8. Now Brent, Here again are YOUR words, and they describe exactly what you just did,

    “Politically nuanced speech is one of the many things that drive a lot of us crazy about politics. It makes it more difficult than it should be to determine if our candidate is taking the fight to the opponent, or simply trying to manipulate us with misleading statements, or by raising the fog of doubt. That difficulty is why we have a responsibility to dig into negative attacks that may look reasonable on the surface.”

    So again I would ask for an apology and that you remove every word that you posted in every venue as soon as you can if you truly have honor and integrity.

    Your move. I told the truth. I have about 15 more links that back up what I posted. If you really think you are honorable, then do the right thing and take this ridiculous blog down and send out an apology immediately,

  9. Thanks for responding Lou. All of this information is available at the opensecrets site linked to in the article. The assertion that Ratcliffe is part of a “top 10 lobbying firm” is misleading anyway you present it. The group did about $2.3 million in lobbying activity in 2006. It was by far their largest year. The top 10 lobbying firms in 2006 did between 17 and 35 million dollars in lobbying activity each.

  10. You are grasping at straws Brent, do you really think I pulled that out of thin air. There were a number of sites that were scrubbed after I brought this connection out. I have a number of screen shots of pages which I will find to satisfy your goofy assertion that I somehow embellished or lied.

    Why don’t you just admit that the seat will be owned by the Ashcroft group, not the people of the 4 th district.

  11. Glad you made it to Texas. The fact that you and Ratcliffe both moved to Texas almost 30 years ago doesn’t seem that relevant. It is ironic to me that you think that moving from Chicago to Texas decades ago is worth pointing out, but moving from anywhere else to Texas decades ago isn’t. For what it’s worth, living in Texas was also a choice, not a chance, for me.

    It may seem like splitting hairs, but Ratcliffe never joined the Ashcroft lobbying group. Ratcliffe is a member of the Ashcroft Law Firm. Saying that Ratcliffe joined the “LOBBYING FIRM” gives a false impression of his role in the business.

    Let’s not move the goal posts on the Zimmer discussion. Your accusation implies that Ratcliffe personally had something to do with the award of the monitoring deal to Ashcroft. If you have evidence of that it should be disclosed. Otherwise, it’s just political innuendo.

  12. Are we only serious about immigration enforcement if it doesn’t impact popular employers in our district? There is room in your flyer to indicate what the fines were for. Businesses, politicians and illegal immigrants have all contributed to the problem, and they all have a role to play in setting things right.

    Pilgrim was not randomly chosen for a multi-state immigration enforcement action by the DOJ. Demonstrating the will to enforce existing law is one of the ways to convince Juan not to rent Jose’s documents. In addition to the fines, Pilgrim had to agree to “adopt more stringent immigration compliance practices to ensure that its work force is composed of employees legally entitled to work in the United States.” Which is exactly what those of us that are serious about immigration enforcement want to see more of.

    If you want to talk about the bankruptcy, Pilgrim posted an 802 million dollar loss the quarter they filed chapter 11. I doubt you seriously believe that the 0.56% of that represented by this token fine cost the district 180 jobs. And that doesn’t even take into account the additional 2.72 billion dollars in debt Pilgrim was carrying. Again, you raise the specter of this bankruptcy as if it is connected in some way to Ratcliffe’s actions when it clearly was not.

  13. Here I am answering YOUR questions while you give a free pass for all the reasons that the 4th district should not vote for Ratcliffe. ALL the lobbying connections, even on the Ashcroft page admitting that they will work together as the Ashcroft Lobbying group, you seem to be OK with but clearly not my statements.

    keep in mind that My statements were on a small 3″x5″ mailer and instead of YOU doing your due diligence and finding the same facts that I did, you are content to disparage me. Good call, Let the Lobbying firm take the seat, that is ok but try your best to discredit me, the man that did the job that was necessary to expose the conflicts?

    Here is the time line, The No bid contract for $52 million was HANDED to the Ashcroft group in 2008. then there were congressional hearings to ferret out the crony and possibly illegal hand out to the Ashcroft group from then US Attorney Chris Christie (Yes NJ Governor Christie). THe hearings took almost a year to complete. Then and only then did Sutton and Ratcliffe move into the Ashcroft group From the DOJ where the contract was generated, then on to the Ashcroft Group. This was 13 months into the 18 month Contract that amounted to the $52 million deal. So there was another 5 months of large payouts.
    The Idea that there is something wrong on my part, for reporting the facts, but nothing that could possibly be wrong for 2 DOJ attorneys waiting to leave the DOJ to the Ashcroft until after the “coast was clear” and they could do it without being connected to the scam.

    It is what it is. A nest of corruption that does not deserve the time of day. And you Brent are a shill for this corrupt group. Do your own homework and find out what you need to know about Ratcliffe and the Ashcroft group and Sutton and Chris Christie, and all of the revolving door bureaucrats that are SELLING the fruits of their Government paid for labor to the highest bidder in the Lobbying and influence business.

    http://askville.amazon.com/top-ten-lobbyists-Washington-2007/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=2053505

    Brent, you need to do some serious soul searching if you are going to try to paint me as the bad guy for bringing this all up while you are giving Ratcliffe a free pass.

    You have just proclaimed that you are OK with all this, links, facts and all. You are ok with a guy who proclaimed he was a “US Attorney” when you yourself said he was just an “Acting US Attorney”
    Omitting that fact about being just an “Acting US Attorney” is ok but putting out all this information for people to do their own investigations on is somehow bad?

    Your tacit endorsement of Ratcliffe is a sad commentary for a guy who claims to be for the grass roots. The Ashcroft group, Johnny Sutton, Ratcliffe, Lobbying, Crony deal making insider bureaucrats is about as far from the “Grass Roots” that anything could be.

    You have sent out a mailer that tries to pic oats out of Horse manure with regard to the facts that i put out. It still smells, it is still brown but you are using the few pieces of Oats that you are trying desperately to find, to call it “Feed”.

    (oh and so did the Hall Campaign put out the same exact facts) If you did your homework, you would have found this out as well.

    http://askville.amazon.com/top-ten-lobbyists-Washington-2007/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=2053505

    ******Note below that in lieu of payment,” Ashcroft took “Equity Stakes in 8 client companies” So he builds up his wealth without dollars trading hands. Ratcliffe is a full partner in this scam. So what part do you think the companies that they have equity stakes in will play in Ratcliffe’s votes?*******

    In March 2006, the New York Times reported that Ashcroft had positioned himself as an “anti-Abramoff.” In an hour-long interview, Ashcroft used the word integrity scores of times.[20] In May 2006, based on conversations with members of Congress, key aides and lobbyists, The Hill magazine listed Ashcroft as one of top 50 “hired guns” (lobbyists) that K Street had to offer.[22]

    In August 2006, the Washington Post reported that Ashcroft’s firm had 30 clients, many of which made products or technology aimed at homeland security. The firm had not disclosed about a third of its client list on grounds of confidentiality. The firm also had equity stakes in eight client companies. It reported receiving $1.4 million in lobbying fees in the past six months, a small fraction of its total earnings.[23]

  14. The Bankruptcy was one piece of the puzzle, not the full puzzle. the penalty was placed on Pilgrim who followed all the laws. the 45 illegals got off and are now probably still in the USA after a brief trip home and back. IT WAS A Grand Stand Play to gain favor with everyone but the people of NE Texas.

    Again, It was an unwarranted and unnecessary bureaucratic power play that hurt a NE Texas company. I guess you are ok with Bureaucrats imposing fines to law abiding companies?

    Again, you are trying to paint me as the bad guy. I did not fine Pilgrim. Nor did I defend it like you are doing.

    Typical RINO excuses. I did not raise any
    Specter” I just reported the facts which in most people’s minds other than yours would be a negative against Ratcliffe the Bureaucrat searching for power.

  15. brent, you also missed the part where the Ashcroft group took “Equity Positions” in the client companies in lieu of payment. so the cash in does not represent the actual payment that transferred into the Ashcroft group. Undisclosed equity positions as payment. imagine that? Just a little more of your errors of omission.

    Quit trying to be a good RINO and stop trying to justify your endorsement of this crooked, borderline illegal operation that Ratcliffe is a partner in.

    there is a pattern here. The pattern is bureaucrats out of control and in a position of authority. From the Pilgrim unwarranted fine, to his partner Johnny Sutton, hammering down on border agents, to Scamming $52 million in an insider contract from another crony insider, Chris Christie. My God, what a group?

    and you come down on me for pointing this mess out?

  16. Now brent I will say one last thing. You have exposed yourself as an enabler of this sort of corruption in Government. You call it splitting hairs but I call it a typical Establishment ploy to justify things that border on Illegal.

    In summary, find someone else to pretend that you are smart with. You seem to be obsessed with trying to blame me for doing my job while you absolve your self for missing the target.

    So from this point forward, you can talk to yourself.

  17. Oh, remember the US Attorney who handed the $52 million to the Ashcroft group was chris Christie of NJ ? And now Christie is under fire for giving money to a in damaged development using hurricane Sandy money, right.
    Well that project is owned by the Rockefeller fund. And here is just another minor tie bit to tie this almost criminal group together.

    In July 2009, the Rockefeller Family Fund “retained former Attorney General’s John Ashcroft’s lobbying venture to work Congress on its behalf,” reported O’Dwyer’s. The Ashcroft Group is representing the Fund

    So Ashcroft gets paid by the Rockefeller fund then the US Attorney, Chris Christie,who gave the $52 million to Ashcroft does another favor for the Ashcroft group.

    See how that works? I am sure that there is more but these facts should be enough to make a real conservative shudder.

  18. As a former supporter of both of you, I am not happy with either of you now. I believe both of you should apologize and act like grown men. I am really surprised at some of the things you said about John, Lou, especially after bringing out much of the truth about the current office holder Mr. Ralph Hall. He needs to be replaced and because of your actions here, I do not plan to support you in any of your future campaigns. All three of you were saying pretty much the same thing and now it’s like you are a traitor to our cause.

  19. I don’t want to drag this out, but I’ll add my closing statement as well.

    The only agenda that I have is the truth. Not the “truth well told” or bits and pieces of the truth that color the discussion in favor of one side or another. I’m not running for Congress in the next cycle, so this is the posting of a voter, not a candidate.

    Lou, the associations that you’ve laid out are going to be meaningful to some voters, and less meaningful to others. I honestly appreciate that you took the time to clarify that the associations are what you have a problem with, and not specific actions by Ratcliffe (except for the Pilgrim issue). You’ve thrown out some new items that are similar to those we’ve discussed. They are speculative and focused on associations. It sounds like neither of us will be voting for Chris Christie for anything.

    I would apply the same scrutiny to any candidate that went negative without providing substance for his assertions. We really get more than enough of that from politicians. If you were making charges like this about Ralph Hall my response would be similar. The truth isn’t a competition.

    One last word on the Pilgrim issue. They did not follow the law. They broke the law when they hired hundreds of illegal aliens. Businesses that hire illegal aliens are part of the problem. Being serious about upholding the law is vital for getting the feedback into the system that is necessary to cause change.

    We currently have two candidates to choose between. Nobody knows what might or might not happen two years from now. Our choice may be worse then or it may be better. For now we can only choose from what is actually available. The better the information we have for making that decision, the better decision we will make.

  20. Everything I posted was true in fact I found more last night

    Ashcroft was the lobbying firm for the Rockefeller fund
    then Chris Christie gave hurricane Sandy money $6 million, to the Rockefeller fund while Ashcroft group was the lobbying firm

    The bottom line is that this whole group is borderline illegal and clearly corrupt.

    From Ashcroft lobbying group to chris Christie to Johnny Sutton to Ratcliffe

    All these association are clearly a problem and all the voters deserve to know these things.

    I would suggest to anyone reading this to do your own due diligence and satisfy yourself as to the veracity and truth

    Then vote your best choice.

    I will never sit down and shut up for anyone.

    God bless America and god bless Texas

  21. Just for the record: I did some of the research Lou relied concerning the Ashcroft group and lobbying. It is on this computer. What I found shows a pattern of several Ashcroft employees receiving significant funds from lobbying followed by a wind down to 2 and then one founding member bringing in all the lobbying income. It appeared to me like they were clearing their lobbyist appearance on record to change their angle of business pursuits. I am tied down right now preparing for convention but if the editor requests, I will meet him (or designee) to transfer my files to thumb drive. Haven’t had anybody in my adult life called me a liar.

  22. steve was a great help to me doing some of this research. We were thorough and honest about our findings.
    thanks
    Lou Gigliotti

  23. Pingback: Gigliotti Responds to ‘Deconstructing’ – Four States News

  24. I don’t care about this bickering back and forth between Republicans. What gives? My primary goal is to remove a person that has not supported me in years. Ralph Hall. Your either for Ratcliffe or Hall. Hall has a known track record of minimal support for conservative issues. He is relatively silent on all issues that I’m concerned with. The primaries are over. My candidate didn’t win. I’m over it. Ratcliffe is not my perfect choice but he is the horse that is running against the person I want removed.

  25. Daivd (or David) complains about bickering by bickering without offering facts. I offered to show results of my research and have had no takers, only a bickering attack. Daivd claims Mr. “Hall has a known track record of minimal support for conservative issues.” I had not stated it before but I tried to find evidence of this in December. I researched years of the voting record only to find a relatively consistent pattern of Hall and Sam Johnson voting a remarkably similar pattern. Yes, Hall was a Democrat and appears to have voted with them some prior to conversion to GOP. However, I found his conservatism was not a credible way to attempt to discredit him. We all have opinions. I and other vetterans stood on the line to insure our rights to our own opinions; but claiming a person offering facts is bickering is a little weak.

  26. David, I was not bickering I was defending being called a liar. I know there are plenty of views that match mine on Hall. We did not get what we wanted. None of us did. But at this point we all have to make a non emotional choice based upon the facts and the character of the candidates.

    I would appreciate it if you and anyone else reading this could take the time to read my answers to each charge and the facts about Ratcliffe.

    We all know the facts about Ralph Hall, and that is why I ran against him. But given the facts about Ratcliffe, I have come to the conclusion that Ratcliffe will be a negative for the whole district.

    The complaint about the Incumbent was the crony ties. The same complaints show numerous Crony ties but none of them are in the 4th district and none will be to our benefit.

    We life to fight another day rather than fall into the trap of just wanting to end the current Rep term immediately.

    please read my specific list of facts on the other link and see.

    https://www.fourstatesnews.us/2014/03/21/gigliotti-responds-to-deconstructing/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.