« All the people that supported Jim Greer | Main | Alex Sink out, Janet Reno in? »

Did the GOP know Greer owned Victory Strategies?

UPDATED: The Florida Republican Party is denying it knew anything about Jim Greer's ownership of Victory Strategies before the party audit revealed the connection on Mar. 15. But an earlier draft of the severance agreement obtained by the Times/Herald appears to indicate the party knew about the company -- because it wanted to absolve Greer from wrongdoing involving the fees paid to Victory Strategies, or so argues Greer's attorney.

Here's the language from the draft, which was never executed because it was broadened to include all this political activity and credit card purchases.

"RPOF stipulates and agrees that all RPOF expenditures made during Greer’s term as RPOF Chairman were proper and served the interests of RPOF, and RPOF specifically acknowledges that all expense reimbursements of any kind, American Express account expenditures, consultant fees, fundraising fees, including, but not limited to fees paid by RPOF to Victory Strategies, LLC, service fees, travel and dining expenses were proper and authorized and otherwise ratified by RPOF."

But party attorney Jason Gonzalez said the interpretation of Greer's attorney is patently wrong. He said Greer is the one who proposed this language and then changed it to the more ambiguous language in the agreement party leaders later signed.

"I confronted Jim Greer when I first learned of Victory Strategies and I asked him, 'Did you have an ownership interest?' And he said, 'no,'" Gonzalez said.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Quote: "... language from the draft, which was never executed ... "

Seems from today's vantage point that it would definitely have been in Greer's interest to have that language in there, and agreed to by the RPOF.

But that was in a draft, which was NOT ratified by both sides. Of course, we do not know exactly why both sides did not agree to all the language or provisions.

But it seems to me, just using the known circumstances and logic, that it is far more likely that the RPOF balked at this provision, than the apparent suggestion from Greer's lawyer that RPOF wanted it to be in the deal.

If RPOF DIDN'T know much about the details of Vital Strategies, its inclusion in Greer's departure package would raise red flags; OTOH, if other RPOF leaders did have significant knowledge, then absolving Greer would clearly bring all the (potential) blame back on the heads of RPOF ...and why would they knowingly agree to that?

Greer's lawyer's claim just doesn't make sense.

The comments to this entry are closed.