Nothing Fishy

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/current-leadership-of-the-lp

Paulie, I've never "demanded" or otherwise requested further disavowals from Wrights, and instead have just asked potential witnesses for input on this he-said-she-said dispute.  I'll note that during the Keaton affair, I don't remember Wrights (or any other of Angela's supporters) ever having a problem with Angela publicly saying that the LP is not to be joined or advising its donors they were defrauded, while many of her partisans (like some of Wrights') have agreed with her sentiments.  The comments of Wrights and his supporters about this LNC make it very plausible to me that in a fit of anger Wrights might make the statement attributed to him. Heck, we even saw the LPMA formally advocate against donating to the LPUS, and there was also a recent contretemps over give-or-get.  It would be disingenuous to suggest that all 17 LNC members were equally unlikely to publicly say they won't be donating to this LNC.

There's nothing fishy at all about having non-identical standards for removal-for-cause versus declining to appoint someone to fill the position he recently held.  Renewal of a lapsed relationship is clearly the most natural time to review its merits.