Earlier in the week, Serial Lurker, brought up some valid questions/concerns on the investigation/prosecutorial conduct in situations like the investigation on the Noe Conduits.
This was part of one comment:
This special prosecutor racket just has to stop. It's going to take a large article in a major newspaper to get people to start talking about it - and then from there we'll need a blogstorm to keep the pressure on. The Free Press is probably enough to get the ball rolling, but they have to understand that this problem permeates all prosecutor's offices across the state. The "office" of "special prosecutor" is a pivotal device on obtaining a specific case outcome. All 88 of them (county prosecutors) will fight against giving up control over picking their replacements in politically sensitive cases, but public pressure has to mount in order to stop it. Allowing a prosecutor to pick their own replacement - or to even SUGGEST who should take over - violates the purpose of even having a special prosecutor assigned. Once the populace thinks about this issue, they're going to get more and more mad because it's just so damn unethical. It's a wonder nobody puts a stop to it.
Today's Toledo Blade goes into some of this. While it doesn't go into much outside of the Noe investigation, it does provide some information that is a recommended read.
Serial Lurker had a point about the way this system is designed and as stated in the Blade article:
But critics wonder if more could have been discovered, if more questions about politics and fund-raising could have been answered.
Ms. Turcer, the legislative director of Ohio Citizen Action, said the lack of charges against conduits - on the federal and state level - is a failure of the system.
"It is astonishingly painful to imagine that this kind of monkey business is happening and the judicial system does not seem to care," she said.
While I don't think this article goes far enough into addressing some of the concerns that were stated here, it is a start...
Keeping Your Belongings Safe Through Storms
-
Years ago almost every house was built with some sort of shutter, whether
designed as storm shutters or for security. Granted, most windows during
those d...
13 years ago
13 comments:
In America, we have a War on Young Urban Males that we call a "War on Drugs."
We have a War on Civil Liberties and Regimes We Don't Like" called a "War on Terror."
But when it comes to systemic, premeditated, pervasive Republican corruption, all of sudden we want to change the subject.
The Feds go after that hapless LOSER McCloskey to supposedly "prove" that "Democrats are bad too", to go along with their "it was all "Noe's fault, he's just one bad apple" plan. And it looks as if it's working.
Big Time.
The problem is NOT with how the local prosecutors pick special prosecutors. This is (at BEST) a side issue. Which is just exactly what the GOP wants. Do anything to keep the voters distracted and for God's sake, away from the polls.
The problem is that the Federal prosecutor (a recent GOP candidate for Congress) who SHOULD have arrested MANY GOP office holders and Party operatives by now, has instead has made an absolutely political decision to stick with the GOP "it's all Tom's fault" plan.
This is sheer, egregious Republican political corruption. The Federal prosecutor absolutely, positively did NOT need to grant immunity to all (or, in fact, any) of the conduits in order to secure an indictment. And, BTW, if you count everybody that the FBI has uncovered from ALL of the different campaigns, there is a LOT more than 24 conduits. The Dirty Two Dozen are just the ones from ONE Bush fundraiser.
And all of those GOP prosecutors saying "well, we need more proof to get a conviction" are totally lying out their asses. First, you establish probable cause to indict, THEN you see what develops. If you never charge anybody, nobody rolls. FIRST you get the indictments, after that you start dealing AS NEEDED. But when EVERYBODY gets a free pass right out of the gate, you get nadda.
At a minimum you force criminals like Sally Perz to take the Fifth in public, where everyone can see for themselves. If a jury sees through her, all the better, if not, there was MORE than enough cold, hard, paper evidence to more than justify going to trial. To give a free pass to someone who refuses to cooperate is abusive prosecutorial conduct.
Just take a few people to trial and THEN watch what happens!
In some ways, the way that the GOP has masterfully manipulated the "investigation" of this wide spread rampant crime is amazing.
Overall, with the BWC coin fund losses, the "mysteriously" unsolved theft of the wine from Evergreen,Colorado, the Noe "contributions" to EVERY GOP campaign and now the prosecutors refusal to uphold the law, this is a scandal that ranks up there with Teapot Dome and Watergate.
It's amazing that in the same thread, Lisa argues "we should focus on preventing this is the future" while wringing her hands and bewailing "oh, we shouldn't send these nice folks to jail."
WHY THE HELL NOT?
Lisa, thanks for nod.
I guess this situation isn't really a "wonder" - it's the inevitable conclusion to the Ohio political landscape. Imagine the decision a prosecutor's office must make when faced with a dozen politicos involved in this type of misconduct. Assistant US Attorney David Bauer's office could easily the case for felony charges - if they kept digging and showed some resolve on pulling out the weeds of corruption - but what kind of repercussions would that bring on Lucas County/Ohio/US political system as a whole? Many haven't considered that the Noe situation, if scoured, could've changed the outcome of the 2004 election. That's not a fantasy either. That election was so close that Republican operatives were trying to suppress the Mike Allen sex scandal in Cincinatti because of fears that it would upset the Republican base in that county. The pres race was THAT close.
We'd have a complete loss of trust in the system, and that type of upheaval just isn't worth it. (According to the US Attorney's office who would have to do most of the work, plus call in reinforcements from Washington DC to handle the overflow.)
Anonymous serves up some drivel with this one:
"The problem is NOT with how the local prosecutors pick special prosecutors. This is (at BEST) a side issue. Which is just exactly what the GOP wants. Do anything to keep the voters distracted and for God's sake, away from the polls."
Anonymous must believe that Democrats are demi-gods and incapable of abusing their power. The truth is that politics in Ohio are filled with self serving office holders. It's insider vs. outsider. Political stripe means very little and registers on the low side of the circumstantial factors weighed when making a political decision. Re-directing the conversation to superficial partisan sniping is the way partisan shills would handle this debate. It's just another way to divert attention from the fact that insiders are abusing their positions to benefit their friends and then blaming someone else because of a "D" or "R" behind their name.
Funny how anonymous calls the special prosecutor racket a "side issue" even though the special prosecutor appointment process is a very tangible and observable way to influence the most deadly, life changing tool at the hands of the government: criminal prosecution.
Watch the prosecutor's office. They hold the most real power in County government.
Except of course in this case
IT'S NOT ABOUT COUNTY GOVERNMENT
okay, "anonymous."
Where would your precious federal investigation be if the Lucas County Prosecutor's office hadn't begun an investigation upon the complaint of Joe Kidd?
Bates opened up a can of worms as political payback.
If this isn't about county politics, what's it about?
You don't actually believe that the Democrats in Ohio are clean do you?
I should've been more clearer in the above post: I'm wondering if "anonymous" believes that Greg White would've nailed a Republican in Lucas County upon the complaint of a Democrat.
Do you really think that anon?
nice back and forth chatter.....keep going
Nice interpretation of what I said anon..wrong but cute.
I did not see the benefit of sending those four women to jail when the others involved have only gotten fines. Selecting them for punishment above and beyond others who had larger amounts of money involved didn't make sense. Especially given the charges made by the special prosecutor.
I also felt Serial Lurker made some valid points so since the Blade did provide a bit more information felt I would highlight not only the article but some of the previous comments made.
Even when I don't agree with someone on everything, if they raise a point that might be of interest to discuss? I'll raise it. This blog is about more than just me, it's about what is important to readers here too.
I learn from people that comment here probably just as much as some who visit here learn from what I post.
Lisa, why don't you think they should've been sent away?
I agree with you - but am wondering if it's for the same reason. IMO, Thurber and Co. aren't guilty of anything but stupidity. They acted like a bunch of sheep. Knowing women like I do (heh heh) they're very sensitive on matters of ethics, and in this respect would seem very odd for them not to understand why what they were doing wasn't wrong.
In their (weak) defense, who in their right political mind would want to upset a highly connected and respected Republican if asked to make a donation to Bush's campaign?
The watered down misdy convictions are to serve as friendly memos to friend and foe alike: (because all public employees, in the end, are friends) No more financial monkey business or we'll begrudgingly have to keel haul you.
Part of my feeling that way comes from what you stated as far as what any of the conduits are guilty of. Realistically most if not all should have known better. This should be taken more seriously however to me given that others like Taft, or like Talbot as an example, were given basic slaps on the wrist I don't see how it benefits anyone to make these four women some type of example.
Even putting Noe in prison isn't going to change the problem that created this. It was the reward system created by the Republican Party that is still going on. There could very well be many more Noe's all over America, who want the perceived benefit of being one of the "higher level" donators and the perks that come with that. However changing that is going to take a lot more than just handing out fines to those involved here in Ohio or putting Tom Noe in prison for a few years.
Nor is it a simple matter of just blaming Republicans since Democrats have their own version of pay to play, especially in places where they are the controlling party.
Will that ever happen in our life time? Probably not, but at times I'm still idealistic...
Kate, it's not uncommon for a prosecutor or an attorney to want motions like that to remain sealed. Especially when a motion isn't granted.
Lisa,
The key to this prosecution is, how were other players treated for similar offenses?
Of course, that kind of thinking never allows for more or less vigorous prosecutions...
Anonymous has quite the interesting slant on this 'white' crime. The 'young urban males' reference says it all. These men are always suspect even when they are just hanging.
Yet, the classy suburban white woman would 'never' be suspected of doing anything wrong. Their white skin and money insulate them from 'those other people' whom, we ALL know are the real criminals in our society.
To get a handle on the white/black litigation differential consider the punishment for possession of cocaine the powder vs cocaine as crack.
Post a Comment