RSS

George McHugh: Wallowing Sows and Vomiting Dogs – Part I

27 Oct

Smalbany’s Summary of why George McHugh and his Comeback Losers would be really bad news for Coeymans will be posted on Sunday, November 3, 2019.  Stay tuned!


It’s Sunday so let’s talk Holy Scripture:
“As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly”
(Proverbs 26:11 / 2 Peter 2:22)

How Proverbs and 2 Peter apply to George McHugh.

2 Peter 2:22 concludes Peter’s teaching about those who had gone astray and fallen in the gutter by their deceits. He has in mind those who had come into contact with the community of the righteous, only to return to the sinfulness of the hypocrites and the world.  Similarly, those kind of men are like a pig who can be scrubbed clean, but soon returns to wallow in the muck again. In other words, these men never truly changed in their nature or their character. Dogs and pigs do what dogs and pigs do; there’s no changing them. Men like that show that they never changed, and it stands to reason that they are still exactly what they used to be. The verse describes George McHugh perfectly.


At this point, we believe that when George McHugh started his campaign, he thought it would be Coeymans-as-usual. Just go out there, tell them what they want to hear, trash your opponents, tell some lies, make some promises you’ll never keep, and they’ll repay you with their vote. Not this time, boys.

We don’t think that McHugh had a clue about how his campaign would draw such attention. He never planned on the inquiries, the investigation, the uncovering of so many unsavory and off-putting examples of his dishonesty, unethical conduct and professional ethics violations, his deceitfulness, and his disdain for transparency and answering the public’s questions. His arrogance is particularly troubling.

Sorry, Georgie, did we surprise you?

McHugh never expected the analysis and the scrutiny that his background and his conduct would elicit. But here it is, Georgie Boy.

That’s why we chose those Bible verses especially for you; the have particularly special meaning that applies beautifully to you, George McHugh.

Back in September, we invited both candidates for Coeymans Town Supervisor, incumbent Phil Crandall and challenger George McHugh, to be interviewed by an impartial, non-partisan, interviewer, in the presence of an observer for the interviewee and a community observer. Smalbany provided both candidates with a set of Proposed Interview Questions, so that the interviewees would have the opportunity to do their preparation and provide the best-possible answers. Smalbany’s interviewer would be expected to ask the set questions but also had the discretion to ask additional questions.

The current Coeymans Town Supervisor, Mr. Phillip Crandall, responded almost immediately to our invitation with a confirmation that he would be willing to be interviewed, and left it up to Smalbany to suggest [a] possible date[s]. Mr. Crandall was interviewed on October 16, 2019, for more than two hours. Smalbany published selected excerpts from the Crandall Interview in three Segments, and provided the full transcripts for readers to view or download.

We are providing the links below to those excerpts, where you will also find links to the complete transcripts of the interview.

George D. McHugh, candidate opposing Mr. Crandall, is running alongside Zach Collins and Brendan Lefevre, both running for seats on the Coeymans Town Board, and George Langdon, a former Coeymans Town Board member, now running for a seat on the County Legislature. The closest classical saying we can come up with is from Benjamin Franklin:

This one’s for Zach Collins and Brendan Lefevre.

Smalbany contacted George McHugh at the same time that we contacted Mr. Crandall. Mr. Crandall responded almost immediately; McHugh refused to respond. Smalbany contacted McHugh in two follow-ups but McHugh continued to refuse to respond.

McHugh refused to answer questions.

McHugh followed the same pattern when it came to the proposed debates between Mr. Crandall and McHugh: three opportunities and McHugh refused all three.

This raises important questions for the Coeymans community: First: If McHugh won’t respond to questions now, what can you expect if somehow he gets elected? Second: What is he hiding?

There is a legal maxim that goes like this
“”Silence is admission of guilt when when the accused ought to have spoken and was able to.”
Mr. McHugh, being an attorney, must have applied that maxim many times; now we apply it to him.

We’ll start with the actual questions we sent to George McHugh with all three of our invitations to interview. We’ll then move on to questions that have been raised in the course of our research, questions that point to very serious character and professional defects in George McHugh that make him unfit for public office, and may even subject him to professional discipline as an attorney.

We will present the questions and our findings in two parts, the first of which we will publish today and Part II, on Tuesday.


PART I – The McHugh Interview that Wasn’t.

Questions that George McHugh has avoided answering

  1. You were elected to be Town of Coeymans Supervisor back in 2001, served one term, and then did not run for a second term. Why was that?

McHugh refused to answer this question. McHugh admits his guilt.

We actually covered this question in two separate articles on the Smalbany blog, so we’ll just refer you to those articles for the details, and recap briefly here: In a Ravena News Herald Article back in 2001, and in a letter to the editor in May 2001, McHugh gave as his reasons for not running for re-election in 2001: his family and his law practice. In March 2019, he changes his story: In an article in the Ravena News Herald, and in his campaign pieces mailed to Coeymans residents, McHugh now claims it was his sense of duty and patriotism after the events of 9/11. George McHugh desecrates the memory and sacrifices of 9/11, and attempts to exploit the giref and emotions associated with the national tragedy of 9/11 to gain political benefit through an outright lie! We say that’s disgraceful and despicable. That alone should cost him your vote. A liar before election is likely to be a liar after the election. (See our Smalbany article: George McHugh: Dishonorable Scoundrel! How Dare You!!!)

  1. The question of the Blaisdell Farm property and your [McHugh’s] housing project on that property has been the subject of a number of inquiries, particularly the fact that the property was annexed by the Village of Ravena at about the time you were Coeymans Town Supervisor, or shortly after you left office. Would you please comment on the circumstances of that annexation and how you benefitted from it? (See our Smalbany article at To McHugh or Not to McHugh.)

McHugh refused to answer this question. McHugh admits his guilt.

One of McHugh’s former wives — he’s gone through 3 and is on his 4th so far — was running Darby Real Estate back in 2001. McHugh was a one-term Coeymans Town Supervisor back then. McHugh acquired a number of properties in the Town of Coeymans and “the McHugh family” held real estate in the Town of Coeymans and the Village of Ravena. McHugh acquired the Blaisdell Farm property (now accessed along North Clement Street and Laura Lane) and planned to “develop” that property but the property did not have access to water or sewerage, which was an obstacle to development. Evidence points to McHugh’s possible abuse of his public office as Town Supervisor, and his Republican controlled Town Board, to get the McHugh property annexed by the Village of Ravena, and so to get access to water and sewer. Once McHugh hatched the plan and had the annexation plan rolling in the right direction, he was ready to leave public office, and get back to his real estate operations. After a lawsuit the property was annexed to the Village of Ravena, and McHugh built and sold several single-family residences. We reported on this egregious abuse of office in a Smalbany article.(See our Smalbany article at To McHugh or Not to McHugh.)

A crook before the election will be a crook after the election; if he abused public office before, he’ll probably do it again.

  1. You were appointed to a federal administrative law judgeship. It would appear that you are no longer serving in that capacity. Can you tell us what happened to the judgeship?

McHugh refused to answer this question. McHugh admits his guilt.

In 2015, McHugh was appointed to be an administrative judge for the Social Security’s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (SSODAR). That appointment was a federal position and was a lifetime appointment. McHugh lasted about a year in the position and then returned to be Carver Laraway’s  general counsel. For most attorney’s such an appointment would be a feather in their cap, a star in their career. But for McHugh, it was an obstacle, because he would not be able to practice law for private clients. In other words, he wouldn’t be Carver Laraway’s general counsel, and make the huge bucks he had his eye on.

McHugh is generally silent as to the reasons why he gave up the judgeship or lost it. True, he does have a history of significant and serious ethical problems. Were they the reason?

Given McHugh’s ethical problems, the ones he was caught with, that is, and his apparent abuse of the Supervisor’s Office in 2001, how can Coeymans residents and voters trust him in 2019, now that he has his eyes on a piece of the pie with Carver Laraway and Lafarge?

In a recent Times Union article and interview done in May 2019 by Laurin Stanworth, “Is Coeymans candidate too close to port owner?” quoting directly from the Stanworth article: “McHugh, who is running as a Republican for the town’s $35,000 part-time post, acknowledged his ongoing connection to Carver Companies. In an interview with the Times Union, he [McHugh] said he would continue to do legal work for Laraway if asked.”

Conflicts of interest before the election are conflicts of interest after the election.

  1. Your campaign slogan is “Take Back Our Town,” from whom do you expect to take it back?

McHugh refused to answer this question. McHugh admits his guilt.

Our research and McHugh’s own statements answer this question: McHugh wants to take back HIS town from honest men and women, and hand it over to his keepers and clients, Carver Laraway and LaFarge. It’s clear from a Times Union interview done in May 2019 by Laurin Stanworth, “Is Coeymans candidate too close to port owner?

Quoting directly from the Stanworth article: “McHugh, who is running as a Republican for the town’s $35,000 part-time post, acknowledged his ongoing connection to Carver Companies. In an interview with the Times Union, he said he would continue to do legal work for Laraway if asked.” What about conflicts of interest? Stanworth asked the question and when “[a]sked about the appearance of conflict of interest in his running for supervisor, McHugh said, “The only people who have brought it up [the question of conflict of interest] is the Times Union.”

That’s not true, McHugh! The question is a glaring question already asked by many people, many times. You and your hoodlums are just ignoring the people.

McHugh would probably respond that if any issues about Carver or LaFarge were to come before the Coeymans Town Board, he would “recuse himself.” Not good enough, Georgie!

You see, McHugh is running with two young pups with no life experience to speak of and certainly no political experience. You might gloss over that by parroting McHugh’s line that the Board needs young people. Or that he wants to appeal to younger voters by having younger running mates. But the actual reason is much darker, much more sinister. You see, if by some catastrophic stroke of bad luck, McHugh were actually to be honestly and legally elected, which is a longshot, indeed, he would control the Coeymans Town Board with at least a 3-2 majority or a 3-1 majority, even if McHugh actually were to recuse himself. Given the characters and immaturity of Zach Collins and Brendan Lefevre, McHugh would have no problem controlling them to do whatever he told them to do. They are mere puppets. Then there’s Daniel “Dan” Baker, who’s already shown himself to be a member of the McHugh camp while being on the Crandall Board.

The point is this: with a Town Board packed with McHugh puppets, McHugh can still recuse himself and still give Carver Laraway or LaFarge exactly what they ask for.

It sure is a “Comeback Team” and they sure will “Take Back” the town, but not like you were thinking and not how they want you to think. McHugh wants a come-back so he can take back the town and get what he wants and what his keepers want. He wants it just like he had it in 2001, when he wanted water and sewer for his planned project.

  1. Who are the Friends of Coeymans? Do they have names?

McHugh refused to answer this question. McHugh admits his guilt.

At this late date, nearly everyone in Coeymans and beyond know who the Friends of Coeymans are, and why they’re known by most residents as the Fiends of Coeymans or the epithet, Coeymans FOCs. We also know what, why, and for whom they are doing what they do. Jeff LaQuire (the Coeymans Clown following people around with his smartphone recorder going), Nate Boomer (Bacon Boy who off camera is a thug, on camera is a pathetic whiner), and Chris Hagen (brother of killer Travis Hagen. By the way, whatever did happen to that investigation.) are McHugh confederates and bullies posing as concerned citizens, but doing McHugh’s dirty work and propaganda for him. McHugh’s using them, advising them, and keeping his own hands clean. That’s how McHugh works: he uses anyone he can to get what he wants. Collins, Lefevre, Baker, 4 wives, anyone.

In general, the FOCs are just ignorant clowns attracting other ignorant clowns to support a self-interested, greedy Scoundrel.

Neonazis. If you have ever had the opportunity to observe their sillyness at a Coeymans Town Board meeting where they make animal noises (which come natural to them), call other residents names, follow attendees around with a smartphone recording or videoing them, interrupting private conversations, force people to leave the meeting and even the Town Hall, make it necessary to have police present at public meetings, you’ll know what we mean when we call them neonazi thugs. They use the same tactics. They are schizoid. One minute, for example, Nate Boomer is in the middle of the FOC pack spewing insults and abuse, and in the next moment, posing for Jeff LaQuire’s video, he’s standing at the mike making a passionate and pitiful appeal for cooperation. The live clown performance at the meeting is to send a message to residents; the video is for posting on their Facebook propaganda site. Reminds you of some third world dictator, doesn’t it?

Thugs before the election are certain to be worse thugs after the election.

Could this be out of the Friends of Coeymans highschool yearbook?

It makes you want to vomit when they then preach freedom of speech, truth, etc. That’s not the message their behavior sends. Ask Coeymans residents.

The real message being sent by Friends of Coeymans, George McHugh’s thugs.

Part II of the McHugh Interview that Wasn’t will be Published on Tuesday, October 29, 2019.
Stay tuned!


Read the Excerpts from Segments 1, 2, and 3 of the Crandall Interview:
Crandall Interview: Segment 1
Crandall Interview: Segment 2
Crandall Interview: Segment 3

Plus the Featured Resident Comment:
The Coeymans Clowns, the FoC, Are True to Their Reputation: Thugs

Specifically about George McHugh’s Lack of Character
George McHugh: Dishonorable Scoundrel! How Dare You!!!
George McHugh: Conspiracy, Misrepresentation, Possible Fraud?

 

5 responses to “George McHugh: Wallowing Sows and Vomiting Dogs – Part I

  1. Anonymous

    October 27, 2019 at 7:32 pm

    Fair answers to all of my points. To be fair, I was not pointing in any direction regarding McHugh. Perhaps my comment was more suited on your last interview installment.

    To your second point, folks online, via IG and FB are complaining to wordpress if their names are listed and (what they feel) is slandered. I was clarifying, to your benefit, that a blog cannot be considered “news” i.e. Frank Report/NXIVM style for folks to consider legalities like slander/libel. Again, this is a blog.

    Third, I think you would have more impact providing impartial information vs childish gifs and name calling, but purely my opinion, I think your facts get buried in your rhetoric, and horrible GIFS. Again, not my blog, but giving an opinion.

    Fourth, I don’t see hardly any comments. Perhaps it is because I’m not a subscriber. Looking through the archives for this year I see about a dozen comments total. I find that odd considering the amount of subscribers is all. Math.

    Fifth, “Whether or not you feel we have “couth” or “refinement” is of little interest to us or to the majority of our readers” Duly noted.
    Last, COC was a shortened form of Citizens of Coeymans (and their respective FB mentioned prior)
    Thank you for the time you put into your blog, I enjoyed the information.

    Like

     
    • Principal Editor

      October 28, 2019 at 7:13 am

      We appreciate your civility and your straightforward commentary.

      I would like to hear more about what you refer to as being in our last interview installment.

      I do want to clarify one point that was perhaps made in the interest of brevity but may also not have been totally representative of our philosophy. That point is noted in your comment as “Fifth.” When I wrote “of little interest” the sense was NOT that we are untouched by our readers reactions or responses. Nothing could be further from the truth. “Interest” here is intended to mean “participation,” in other words, we cannot participate in the perceptions or judgments of our readers such as whether someone finds something “uncouth” or “childish.” Those are judgments and as judgments, they are largely subjective.
      Smallbany may be accused of being “judgmental” if only because we sometimes come across as being extremely critical. So let me put your mind and the minds of those with similar opinions at ease. The style is meant to get your attention and the questions raised are frequently articulated in such a was as to get the reader to THINK, even if it’s not in our favor. At least it’s a start.

      As for the “childish” graphics and images, each and every one of those images is selected or created to accompany the text in a metaphorical or symbolic supportive way. For those who are not verbal, the visual may assist in understanding the point.

      Once again, thank you for your very coherent and civil comment. We can only hope that we see more like it.

      The Editor

      Like

       
    • Two two

      October 28, 2019 at 2:24 pm

      People are reading. At board meetings and community posts this Blog is not directly mention, some of the things you see and read about stem from facts found on Smalbany. Peoplenotice these things. public officials in the state and county of Albany have proven to me that they read this blog. Tom, Crandall and officials in the executive legislature read the stuff because they know there are a lot of facts mixed in with squawker statements. The humor is entertaining. It’s good when you can find humor and laugh about things in the sick world we live in. appreciate the humor:) respect the individuality in everyone, we’re all different and unique. I can appreciate that. can you honestly say you didn’t chuckle when reading the blog about Boomer and FOC😆

      Like

       
  2. Anonymous

    October 27, 2019 at 3:02 pm

    FOC supporters have stated Crandall allowing your interview has helped him win by a landslide. I respectfully disagree. Crandall accepted the interview period. Which is what any representative should do if running for the job to represent the people. I appreciate your transparency and links to the transcripts. While your blog is usually inflammatory, it’s a blog. You are allowed to post whatever you like. It is not likened to slander or abuse. It is not your job to spoon feed people when you give them links to the minutes or transcripts for their own research. Comments online are stating you are a reporter, which you clearly are not and make clear in your “about” section. After reviewing the FOC and Citizens of Coeymans FB pages, I found the COC page to be more comment friendly and less bias. Most people also can read between the lines and see that you have 498k subscribers and yet zero comments on your blog refuting your information. Appreciate the information you provide, even though you have no couth.

    Like

     
    • Principal Editor

      October 27, 2019 at 6:50 pm

      Thank you, Anonymous for your comment.

      You make some broad comments about the Crandall Interview but say very little about the McHugh situation. You seem to be more interested in how this blog functions than how the McHugh campaign is being orchestrated and execution. Won’t you please comment on that issue?

      As for your comment about “reporters”: We know of no claim or comment claiming that any contributor uses the term “reporter” to describe him- or herself. While that claim is not explicitly made, one would be quite justified in calling him or herself a reporter, since that is exactly what is being done. We do the research and the investigations, we vet the facts, and we report them. We would therefore have no problem at all referring to any contributor as a reporter.

      We are aware that some of our readers, some very regular readers, find the style somewhat direct but clearly have no issues with the content. We are writing for a very “earthy” demographic so we have to appeal to the majority, who obviously do not grasp high philosophy or abstract discussion very well.

      As for our statistics, they are provided by a third party provider. We have no control over the numbers, which are for the most part reported in terms of pageloads, return visits, and unique visits. The provider uses cookies to collect the statistics. We have been using Statcounter, the provider, for a number of years on a number of blogs and find them to be accurate and reliable.

      As for your observation on comments in particular: The statistics for comments are not visible to readers. I believe comment counts do appear for some but we do not provide comment counts publicly. You should also be aware that because of the environment and the atmosphere in these small towns like Coeymans, New Baltimore, and even in larger municipalities, there is a great deal of polarization. There is a great deal of anger and anxiety that prevent many people from gathering the courage to make a comment, even if they, as you do, comment as an Anonymous. For your information over the past 9 months we have clocked about 2000 comments. Some of those comments were not publishable. Others were off-topic and were trashed. The remainder, some 1900, are on the blog and can be read at any time.

      Whether or not you feel we have “couth” or “refinement” is of little interest to us or to the majority of our readers. Most are able to clearly read and understand the underlying message, which may not be couth, but then Truth is not always couth.

      Thank you once again for your comment, and thank you for being one of our many readers.

      The Editor

      P.S. You refer to something with the acronym “COC”. Can you clarify what that is supposed to mean? Do you mean CFC, the Citizens for Coeymans group?

      Like

       

Please share your thoughts about this post.. Leave a comment here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: