I’m not present at the trial of Julius Henson, a political consultant with Republican Robert Ehrlich’s 2010 campaign for governor, over the infamous “Relax” Election Day robocalls he is alleged to have authorized. But from my comfortable, removed vantage point the defense he’s built seems a bit at odds with itself.
According to The Baltimore Sun, Henson testified that the blame lies with Paul Schurick, Ehrlich’s campaign manager who has already been convicted on four counts related to the robocall whose apparent function was to suppress the black Democrat vote. When asked about a plan he wrote to keep black voters from the polls, Henson claimed this was ultimately based on Schurick’s ideas. And that he “tried to send them in another direction, but this is what [the campaign] wanted.”
Okay, fair enough. But how does that square with other parts of his testimony in which he asserts the robocall (which falsely reported that the voting was over and O’Malley had won) was a “counterintuitive” effort to encourage Republicans to get out to the polls?
And how does that hold up with the fact that the robocall was sent out to homes in Baltimore and Prince George’s County, two locations with high percentages of black and Democratic voters?
I guess it’s all just too counterintuitive for me to grasp.