Ron Williams Deigns To Notice Local Democratic Races
One frustrating thing for me the election year has been the lack of coverage on the local races by the News Journal. Or should I say the complete lack of interest in Democratic candidates? The NJ has covered 3 Republican candidate forums and 0 Democratic candidate forums. The last Democratic candidate forum was Monday night, sponsored by the Newark Area Democrats. The NJ didn’t bother to show up, even though they were invited.
I found it interesting that yesterday, Ron Williams, after getting his normal bash at Chris Coons in, reacted with puzzlement to the primary for Sheriff. Williams:
What’s going on here anyway?
Mike Walsh, the New Castle County sheriff since the days of Robin Hood, is facing a Democratic primary against Trinidad Navarro, a county police officer.
Navarro recently received a 10-0 vote of support in the 22nd Rep. District.
Perhaps if the NJ showed any interest in the candidate forums they would know. Walsh talks about what a great job he’s doing and Navarro talks about renewal and modernization. One devastating point made by Navarro re Walsh is that Walsh doesn’t know how to use a computer. It certainly doesn’t help Walsh that he doesn’t have an email contact or a website.
As far as endorsements, I think (I’m not quite sure) that Navarro has gotten the endorsement of 4 other committees, to Walsh’s 1. I know for sure that Navarro was endorsed by the 24th RD Democratic Committee (5-0).
Williams also comments on the Treasurer primary, but doesn’t add much to our knowledge:
How did this really happen?
There’s also a Democratic primary for state treasurer, Gov. Markell’s old office, between appointed treasurer Velda Jones-Potter and Chip Flowers, a Middletown lawyer.
Word is that Flowers got in the race after Jones-Potter had announced she wouldn’t seek election. That’s because former deputy finance director Tom Cook was about to lose his job with elimination of the Department of Finance and he was promised the nomination for treasurer. But the decision to eliminate the agency was reversed and Cook became finance secretary.
That allowed Jones-Potter to change her mind. Word from the Jones-Potter camp is that Flowers never told them he was running.
Readers of this blog know that this is one of the more hotly contested primary races. I wonder if the NJ will even notice? There was no mention at all of the primary for State Auditor either.
Tags: News Journal, Ron Williams
Actually, the sheriff race has the makings of a very ugly primary. I’ll be doing a write up on what I have seen go down very soon. And I fear that it is going to get uglier before it is all said and done.
Without knowing anything about the sheriff race (like probably 99% of the rest of Delawareans), I’d have to say that Navarro should have a decent chance. I have no idea who Mike Walsh is, but like anyone else who watches the news, I don’t go more than a day or two without seeing and hearing Trini. In small races, name recognition is huge.
Yeah, I spoke to Trinidad Navarro when he came to a neighborhood meeting I attended a few months ago. He in so many words accused Walsh of not showing up to work. His wife works in the office with him and has been on paid sick time for several months. He basically hinted that Walsh and his wife are stealing money with their salaries and they are never in the office.
Although, I know neighbors of Trinidad that have very few nice things to say about him. He’s basically a creep from what they tell me.
I’ll wait to see what info you’ve gathered LG, but I don’t have a clue who will come out of this race. But I do think it will get ugly soon.
Actually, it is Walsh’s sister that works with him. She is quite a political force as well, but she has been ill.
Sheriff should really be an appointive position, if not eliminated entirely. As to Mike Walsh, anyone who needs to reach him can find him at Delaware Park every day the ponies are running. Hell, he used to do a horse racing show on local access cable during his tenure as sheriff.
She’s his sister-in-law.
And while Ron Williams really has some cojones in calling out anybody for their age, I’m hoping that whatever LG seems to have here will also ferret out the Navarro/Tom Gordon connection here. Some of which you can see with the disinformation being spread about regarding stealing and no-show jobs.
Ah yes! The infamous Trindad Navarro, State Police spokesman, was he not? Until he decided to sue for promotion. Speaking of State Police there are no lawsuits lately. Everything all right? As for Sheriff lets elimanate the position and see if anyone notices.
For those with short memories, Trini was the one who got Alison Taylor-Levine fired for telling him that the reason he wasn’t promoted to sergeant was his tight relationship with the Gordon administration. Naturally, this provides Ron another opportunity to promote a Gordonite and to bash Coons. That’s why this race, and no others, got a mention. Had the vote gone the other way I doubt it would be mentioned either.
Yes, there does seem to be a Gordon/Navarro connection and that is damning, in my opinion. I have already heard of thug tactics being used that seem like echoes of Gordonberry campaigns.
On the other hand, Walsh comes off as a dope.
I too have heard the word about Gordon and D’Anna serving as “advisors” to Navarro. If that really is the case I will vote for Walsh who may not work but is harmless!
“The infamous Trinidad Navarro, State Police spokesman.”
New Castle County Police.
I stand corrected,
Well, it’s a long row to hoe. Endorsement season isn’t halfway through yet.
And I totally agree with LG. It’s gonna be ugly.
On the treasurer’s race, Ron had some facts correct and a few others rearranged. Chip Flowers was in the race three months before Velda announced. Odd that her team should act like they were unaware of his intentions. Odder still that Velda, after saying she wasn’t running, would expect Flowers to give her advance notice of his plans.
Did you notice that Ron never said who “promised” the treasurer nomination to Tom Cook?
He gives us half the facts but doesn’t report on the interesting details.
That’s because he gets most of his information from Republicans, who are making half of it up.
I met Navarro the other day and he struck me as slimy. Made me think of the good looking cop who goes home and beats on the wife and kids. However, Walsh did not impress me at all either. Don’t know what I want to do with this one. As for treasurer, Chip Flowers gets my vote so far.
That’s because he gets most of his information from Republicans…
…and Republicans think he gets it from Democrats, so goes the Conservative-Liberal Media claim. Personally (and completely unsubstantiated), I think he takes Celia’s notes and rushes to publication. 😉
With regard to Velda Potter you all pooed pooed those in public office who have endorsed her. And now she is sweeping the state in RD endorsements. Some believe Flowers was going to run for Ennis’s seat, until a little deal was made. They would give him some bucks to go after the State Treasurer seat. Well last known Velda has taken every RD with the exception of one, which is his!
The fact is the letter he put out ideas vs endorsements continues to show he wants to be Governor or Economic Development Officer not the State Treasurer. Velda is a finance person 365 days a year, he is an attorney 365 days a year.
Go to VoteVelda.com and look at her endorsements!
“Some believe Flowers was going to run for Ennis’s seat, until a little deal was made.”
Some believe aliens walk among us. Some believe 9/11 was a false-flag operation. Some believe in Skydad.
And when a person with a new name shows up spouting the same old attacks — why must Flowers be evil for Velda to be the better choice? — we have a pretty good idea who that person is.
I haven’t made up my mind yet about the candidates, but the Flowers billboards touting “Jobs.Jobs. Jobs.” seems odd for State Treasurer. Of course all electeds should be interested in this, but State Treas. should be focused on managing the fiscal health of the state…..IMO
heh, yup we know who NANANA is. I have a feeling that she was told to stay off of the blogs too. Bad, bad girl. Also, if the trend here is to run away from any candidate getting counseled by Tommy Gordon then they had better run from Velda. He is helping her campaign.
She is also tight with Tom Wagner. It was a hoot to watch her face when Wagner’s name came up at the DEM meeting in Newark. Her hubby is a big Wagner booster and one of the very first things that Velda did was to hire Wagner’s young Republican deputy, Nick Adams, out from under the Auditor to her second mate position.
I wondered what to make of her claim that she had spoken with Markell and Levin about Chip Flowers’ plans to expand the scope of the Treasurer’s Office and her assertion that the Governor and DEDO “weren’t interested”. Really?
ah, Charles Potters’ second anony supporter speaks. I heard Chip Flowers’ resume on Monday night and it is pretty damn superior. I am interested in hearing how he is going to resolve potential turf battles that his proposals entail. But he seems to have the pulse of Wilmington’s major corporate players – and their support. With those connections he could be an asset in stabilizing the businesses we have and encouraging more into the state. We need all hands on deck.
(you know anony, sometimes I want to post under an assumed anony here but I can’t – Liberal Geek ALWAYS busts me. Must be nice to switch off and on at your pleasure)
I mentioned Gordon only in reference to why Ron Williams would take an interest in the race. That said, I find it sad that the man can’t find something better to do with his time than to try to insinuate himself back into local politics. He’s the upstate John Atkins.
I have an idea — let’s assume intelligent people will decide whom to vote for based on what they say they will do with the office (and I don’t necessarily think big plans are automatically better), not just who advises whom or who endorses whom.
One of the nice things about this blog is that it’s not run by people interested in aligning themselves with candidates and/or electeds in an attempt to wield greater power and influence. I can’t say I’m thrilled by visitors who can’t say the same.
Who is the second supporter? The one who quoted the billboard? He was voicing a legitimate concern. I’ll voice it if you prefer. Frankly, I’m not looking for “all hands on deck.” It’s a separate office from the governor’s, and I don’t like the idea of someone freelancing. We’ve already got a loose cannon on the ship of state over at the IC’s office. I will need convincing that Chip’s ideas are sound ones.
It is a she if I am correct, Geez who usually posts by her own name. I agree with you about one thing, we need more information about Chip’s ideas.
At the meeting, Velda kept trying to minimize Chip’s credentials but it turns out that they are closely aligned with Jack Markell’s when he was first elected Treasurer. Jack brought a lot of new ideas into the office. I think Chip is modeling Markell. I also highly doubt that Markell would refuse to work with Flowers to bring more jobs here. It isn’t like we don’t need as much help as possible. We do.
Good luck with attacking personally instead of checking the facts. Did anyone bother to check the endorsements…facts, facts facts, not personal attacks. How does Flowers intend to create jobs, jobs jobs, when the whole country is trying to figure that one out.
I have an idea — let’s assume intelligent people will decide whom to vote for based on what they say they will do with the office
*
heh, you got it.
I don’t know anything about the Walsh – Navarro skullduggery mentioned here. At the meeting they were civil enough. Walsh stressed the relationships he has built over the years and made a bit of fun over Navarro’s ideas for efficiency.
I believe that Cassandra’s comment refers to Loretta Walsh – someone she is closely aligned with. Is it for ‘greater power and influence” as Geezer would suggest? I don’t think so.
Well, NANANANA, I was under the impression that Velda is not getting endorsed by any statewide DEMs because they want to stay out of the primaries. I wondered if she wasn’t throwing around the idea that ‘Markell and DEDO reject Flowers’ ideas’ as a sneaky way to promote some kind of sympatico. I don’t know. But if given the chance I will certainly ask her in public or ask Markell or Levin about her statements.
It was something when Unstable Isotope announced that members of the public were not allowed to ask any questions of the candidates at the forum. Even when none of the committee people had a question. Democracy in action?
BTW – NANA if you can point out a ‘personal attack’ I have made’ please do so. Perhaps you meant Geezer?
“Good luck with attacking personally instead of checking the facts.”
I attacked your negative statements about Flowers and your rumor-mongering about a “deal.” You continue to boost her by attacking Chip, rather than pointing to any actual strengths or accomplishments. From what Nancy says, Velda is taking the same tack.
And you’ll notice that I backed that up by raising my own doubts about Flowers. All you noticed, however, was the comment about you.
It wasn’t me who said that the general public couldn’t ask questions. We took questions anyway. Not many people were asking them and the purpose of the meeting was for the Democratic committees to decide on endorsements. With so many candidates it was hard to get all the time in.
I would like to have candidate forums with fewer candidates, perhaps focused on some key races open to the general public as well.
So what are the qualifications to be Sheriff? I know they do the sales. Can I be a Sheriff? I’ll let Jason and Donviti be my deputies.
Sheriff is an outdated, anachronistic job. They do sheriff’s sales and serve subpoenas and other court documents. It’s so stupid to have that an elected position. It’s basically turned into an entry-level job for ex-cops who want to get into politics but can’t run for the GA or county council yet because the path isn’t clear in their district (in Sussex, see: Reed, Robert; Swanson, Eric).
I’d work my ass off for ANY candidate, R or D, who pledged to abolish all the stupid county row offices, plus the state treasurer. (At a minimum, it’d keep the Velda/Chip nuts off the blogs! 😉 )
No, Joanne. I think the only thing worse than going to Sheriff Sale would be having Jason and Donviti bickering around you while it happened. 😀
I believe that Cassandra’s comment refers to Loretta Walsh – someone she is closely aligned with. Is it for ‘greater power and influence” as Geezer would suggest? I don’t think so.
More Nancy Willing bullshittery, trying to masquerade as inside info.
I am good friends with Loretta Walsh, not “closely aligned” with her for any political or personal gain reason. But what is fun here is that I know for a fact that you know how to contact Loretta — so why not call her and ASK her how “closely aligned” we are before spouting off with this BS again.
And anon is probably right that the job probably should be professionalized — the work the office does is important (and does add to the county’s revenue), but it is not clear to me that this should be an elected position any more.
Whatever happened to Markell’s remark about the State absorbing (some or all?) row offices?
and it is useful to point out that NANANA is factually incorrect, even while she spouts off about people not checking their facts.
Chip was endorsed by the 9th district, not his home district, the 8th. Tom Gordon and Charles Potter are risking Velda’s candidacy with their heavy-handed tactics. Neither of them command any respect below the canal, yet they have tried to parlay a few contacts into RD endorsements.
I suspect that that will start to backfire soon.
After reading Liberal Geek’s and Geezer’s comments I decided to do a bit of research, because I didn’t live in Delaware when any of this happened. Geezers statement that Alison Taylor- Levine was fired for telling Navarro he wasn’t promoted to sergeant, because of his tight relationship with the Gordon administration, was very damning. Not against Navarro, but against Coons, who Geezer supports more often than not. If Geezer’s right then Coons not only violated Navarro’s constitutional rights (by using political connections/friendships to deny a promotion), but was a total jerk for firing Levine, because she told the truth! Liberal Geek talks about others thug tactics; Coons actions toward Navarro and Levine are the epitome of thug tactics.
Who here wouldn’t have sued Coons (or anyone else) who violated your constitutional rights? In my research I read Judge Sleet’s September 7, 2007 ruling on Coons, Sapp, NCC’s motion to dismiss. Judge Sleet dismissed Navarro’s lawsuit against NCC and Sapp and Coons in their official capacity, but refused to dismiss the lawsuit against Coons individually. According to Judge Sleet’s order Navarro claimed in June 2005 Police Chief McAllister was going to promote him and two others to Sergeant. Sapp, Coons’ public safety director, initially approved the three promotions, but then withdrew his support after meeting with Coons. According to the Court’s order Navarro met with Allison Levine in late June 2005. Levine told Navarro that Coons was not happy with McAllister or Navarro, and that Coons directed her to caution Navarro against “being on the losing team” (McAllister team), that this is “how politics work”, and that “Chris butters the bread.“ Not only did Sleet not dismiss Navarro’s lawsuit against Coons as an individual, as opposed to as County Executive, he also refused to dismiss Navarro’s claim for punitive damages against Coons.
The Judge’s order makes Geezer’s claim that Coons fired Levine even worse, because according to the Courts order Levine talked to Navarro at Coons direction. Maybe she needed to use more coded language in delivering Coons’ message to prevent a successful lawsuit, but it isn’t like Levine on her own let the cat out of the bag, she just made the mistake of being too honest in her conversation with Navarro.
Coons’ heavy handed tactics (both withholding Navarro’s promotion because of who he supported politically, and firing Levine because she failed to get Coons message to Navarro across without exposing him to liability) reflect very poorly on Coons, but in researching the Navarro lawsuit I don’t understand why NCC paid around 100,000 to settle Navarro’s lawsuit, when the federal court had already thrown out the case against the county, and the only part of Navarro’s case left was his claim against Coons individually. Shouldn’t Chris Coons have been the one to pay the settlement if the court already said Navarro couldn’t sue NCC, or employee’s in their official capacity for Coons individual actions?
Navarro was a real jerk for that lawsuit. He was perfectly within his rights to sue, but in doing so, he caused Levine to lose her job for doing nothing more than explaining the facts of politics and patronage to a co-worker.
And Coons was a spineless worm for firing her. She’s a consummate pro, with more brains and class than either Navarro or Coons put together.
Comment by anon : “Navarro was a real jerk for that lawsuit. He was perfectly within his rights to sue, but in doing so, he caused Levine to lose her job for doing nothing more than explaining the facts of politics and patronage to a co-worker.
And Coons was a spineless worm for firing her. She’s a consummate pro, with more brains and class than either Navarro or Coons put together.”
Anon you make no sense, you agree Navarro was within his rights to sue, but fault him for doing so. Are you really saying if you were up for a promotion, were told you had it, and then found out because of who you support politically you weren’t getting the promotion, you would have chalked it up to politics, and done nothing, even though under those facts you would have a strong case against the person who blocked your promotion? I doubt many people would sit back and take it.
According to the Judge’s decision throwing Navarro’s case out against NCC, and everyone else except Coons’ personally (not as County Executive), Coons told Levine to go to Navarro. And yes the reason Navarro didn’t get the promotion was “politics and patronage,” which happened to violate Navarro’s constitutional rights, because the job wasn’t a political position, and Coons didn’t care, which is why the Judge kept Navarro’s suit against Coons as an individual alive. Navarro has no responsibility for Levine’s termination. Levine did what Coons told her to do, Navarro didn’t turn around and accept his fate, and because Levine wasn’t coy enough with Navarro when she passed on Coons message COONS fired her. I agree Coons was a spineless worm, but I don’t see the leap you make blaming Navarro.
He could have sued without naming Levine as a source of the information – that’s what I fault him for. Navarro’s not stupid – he knew exactly why he didn’t get the promotion, and it was because of a guy named Tom Gordon. Simple. Sue, use discovery to support your case, and don’t screw over people who are just doing their jobs and did nothing wrong themselves.
anon,
You’re unbelieveable! I wasn’t around before Coons was the County Executive,and I don’t personally know any of the players involved, which probably allows me to be more objective. But if you blame Navarro at all for Coons firing Levine you lack any objectivity. If you were a civil service employee who can not legally be fired (or not promoted) because of who you support, or don’t supoort, politically, and you were fired, or not promoted because or your past political support, I don’t think you would sit back and do nothing.
You suggest suing and using discovery to prove the law was violated, and not “screw over people” who were just doing their job. Do you seriously believe that Coons would have admitted under oath what he told Levine? And any Coons’ political appointee who admitted it under oath, would met the same fate as Levine. According to the Courts order, which you can look up on-line, Coons denied what Levine told Navarro was true. From your defense of Levine, I assume you would believe Levine over Coons. How do you use discovery to prove your case, if people like Coons will deny that your past political support had any bearing on your failure to be promoted? I haven’t seen Navarro’s lawsuit, that wasn’t on the net, or if it was I didn’t see it, but I don’t believe any lawyer would proceed without mentioning what Levine, or the communications director (her title without her name) told him in the lawsuit.
Here’s what I know from the Courts September 7, 2007 ruling. In early June 2005 Navarro and 2 others were told they would be promoted to Sgt. Sapp agreed to these promotions, and then after talking with Coons Sapp changed his mind. This was over 6 months after Coons took office, this promotion wasn’t in motion before Coons was elected. Sapp agreed with the promotion until after Coons said no. Coons reason, according to Levine was to punish Navarro for supporting Gordon. According to the Courts order at a police officers meeting Navarro defended Gordon, and said he didn’t even think the federal case would go to trial because a lot of the charges were frivilous. This defense of Gordon upset Coons, I don’t know why, according to the Courts order he never said anything bad about Coons,, and as it turned out by the time the Court ruled on Coons motion to dismiss, Navarro’s prediction about the federal case came true.
You’re right that Navarro defending Gordon at the Police meeting cost him the promotion. But ignoring that Navarro’s defense of Gordon turned out to be accurate (the case never went to trial, and he said many of the charges were frivilous before the Court dismissed any counts, and two years before the prosecutor dismissed the whole case), Coons interference with Navarro’s promotion because he supported Gordon was a violation of Navarro’s constitutional rights (according to the 9/7/07 order). How do you defend Coons intereference with Navarro’s promotion? It was wrong, (morally and legally) which is why the Judge wouldn’t dismiss the case against Coons individually, and even left in Navarro’s punitive damages claim against Coons, that is a big deal.
As far as Levine just doing her job, Navarro never sued her, and Cooons alone is responsible for firing her, blaming Navarro is not reasonable. Levine was doing her job as communications director (accoding to the 9/7/07 order) because Coons told levine to tell Navarro why he wasn’t being promoted. Frankly, what Levine was told to tell Navarro goes beyond telling him why he didn’t get promoted, but seems a warning to Navarro, that if he doesn’t abandon his support for Gordon, he’ll be fired. Coons told Levine to rely his message to Navarro, and when it back fired on him, Coons fired Levine. This episode does not speak highly of Coons. 1. Why did he instruct Levine to discuss why Navarro wasn’t getting promoted (and the thinly disguised threat that if he doesn’t abandon his support of Gordon something worse will happen)? There was no need to let Navarro know why his promotion approved in early June 05, was reversed by Coons in late June 05, except to rub it in Navarro’s face,and issue the threat.
2.It also shows that despite Coons past employment as an ethics attorney, he had no clue that his actions were illegal (and unethical)
3. After Coons effort to rub Navarro’s face in his use of Navarro’s support for Gordon to take away his promotion back fired (with Coons being sued) Coons didn’t step up and acknowledge his conduct (no he claimed under oath it wasn’t true according to the 9/7/07 order). Instead of admitting his mistake he lied and fired Levine, for what? Carrying out Coons instructions to contact Navarro.
Whether Navarro would make a good Sheriff, is an issue I don’t have an opinion on, but after researching Navarro’s lawsuit, after Geezer’s post, I don’t see how Anon or anyone can blame any one but Coons on Levine getting fired. And the more I learn about Coons the more depressed I get about having no choice but to vote for him in Nov. (I can’t vote for Castle!)
More Nancy Willing bullshittery, trying to masquerade as inside info.
*
OBJECTION!
Cassypuss, you were the one who answered the telephone during the 2008 silly season when I phoned Loretta Walsh at her home to inquire about a specific post she made here on DL. You were on her campaign ‘team’ and attending a strategy meeting at her home that night. Remember now?
You were having cocktails at the time, as I recall your saying, so perhaps that has clouded your memory.
Allow me to refresh:
Someone calling herself Loretta Walsh posted here responding to the question of whether or not she had endorsed and then subsequently removed her endorsement of Karen Hartley-Nagle over the incident with one of Karen’s campaign workers.
I phoned Loretta personally to verify if she was the one to write the comment on DL. YOU were the one to verify that it was indeed Loretta and you did so on Loretta’s phone.
It wasn’t me who said that the general public couldn’t ask questions.
*
Wasn’t it? Was it Louis? I am pretty sure it was you but regardless, you and Louis were running the meeting and it was firmly stated at the onset that no member of the public may ask a question because, after all, this was a committee meeting for the purpose of the committee getting information for a nomination.
Because that was stated, no member of the public was rude enough to raise their hands. I can assure you that we all had plenty of questions. And there were several times when no committee people had any questions.
One little old lady up front did raise her hand to ask if she was allowed to ask a question and you did graciously allow her to do so.
So when you start with your bullshitery, you don’t stop, you just keep digging deeper.
At the time you called, I was at Loretta’s house fixing her computer (and her campaign manager’s computer) and answering the phone while she was having her meeting. But I won’t ask about your memory since it is common knowledge that those brain cells have been likely killed off some time ago.
It won’t kill you to acknowledge that there is often a difference between friendship and political alignment. And if you could call Loretta to ask her if she posted at DL, you could call her to ask her if we are “aligned” before you spout off with another bit of bullshit analysis. I get that you do this to puff up your own sense of importance in the political landscape, but you’d be better off doing that over at your place where people expect the bull and the conspiracy.
It won’t kill you to acknowledge that there is often a difference between friendship and political alignment.
But wouldn’t one have to have friends to know that difference? 😉
Oh snap!
😆
I believe Nancy Willing, Cassandra is brokering for Waslh and got caught…Way to go Nancy..Also Cassandra wonderful work outing Coons on the Navarro lawsuit…I’m sure we will soon read the information provided here in a Castle brochure!
*sigh* – the memes your little clique employs when you are at a loss for substance…
Readers with some comprehension would recognize that I am not partial on any of the races between DEMs. Nor that my comment about Cassypussy was a slur. I really meant it when I plainly implied that she is not ‘in it for the wrong reasons’. I stand by my observation that she is closely aligned with Walsh – just review what she wrote about what wRong divuldged some time ago.
Awesome! Another credible conspiracy theorist in the mix! And one who can’t read well enough to tell that cassandra_m ≠ Iowa Democrat. But there’s lots of letters in both handles, so you can be forgiven, especially since it looks like your own brain cells went to the same place Nancy’s did.
I guess after reading your last comment, Cass, anyone would say thou dost protest too much.
heh, I am pretty sure I could out do you on any IQ test, dearie.
Your best and first attacks are flimsy ad hominems and you roll in the gutter.
I would say that your pal Coonsie got a pretty good beating here. D’OH! Is that what has your bloomers wadding?
I am also pretty sure that Cassypuss misread jimmy johnson when she drew the conclusion that she was mistaken for Iowa Democrat.
It is more like: Cass, how do like these apples –your Delaware Liberal blog served as a fresh ground breaker for the old news that Coons was sued for being a total sleazeball.
You know, Nancy, you could have the grace to say you were wrong and just apologize rather than continue to dig your hole deeper. So instead of just dealing with the fact that you got caught out — AGAIN — with faulty information (and faulty because you still need to be seen has having some political chops someplace) you want to come back and talk about IQ tests. This is the last refuge of the always outgunned and always outclassed. But you can get back to the faulty information that you keep getting more invested in and acknowledge that you were wrong or not. And we get everything we need to know about your IQ from what you post here. Nuff said on that, I imagine.
But watching you double down on obviously bad moves on your part is always an entertainment.
Iowa Democrat… You see the problem, alright. *sigh*
Oh, I see, because you are her BFF you can’t possibly also be aligned with her politically and when she has campaign strategy meetings at her house and you just happened to be there to help her out you insist that it is evidence that you not aligned with Loretta?
whatever…
btw – the IQ retort was in response to your typical ad hominem about my cognitive ability….”But I won’t ask about your memory since it is common knowledge that those brain cells have been likely killed off some time ago.”
I have been looking at the archives today where Lee Ann Walling was commenting on DL during work hours on her state computer. It was so funny to see you sing the same old tune about me. Projection much?
(Dec. 24th 2008)
Interesting that you would keep this up when one phone call directly to Loretta would pretty definitively demonstrate how wrong you are on this. But I guess whatever cognitive abilities you have think that you are scoring some sort of points by not being able to wrap your mind around the fact that friendship does not always equal political alignment or support. But I imagine that is those cognitive abilities at work again.
It was so funny to see you sing the same old tune about me.
And I’ve not said this about you, so maybe you can put those cognitive abilities to some use by not lying about people. Again.
oh my. Well since you asked, the meme to which I refer is your common fall-back when you have nothing else to add as in “you do this to puff up your own sense of importance in the political landscape”.
Evidently it is a defense you’ve been using for some time.
http://delawareliberal.net//2008/12/24/comment-rescue-el-somnambulo-will-only-say-this-once/comment-page-1/#comment-85704
HA! gotta love it. Btw your readers do to, I’m sure.
Woe is me. Powerless, feckless and friendless.
😉
And in your case, it very much happens to be true. And I would not be in the minority opinion on that, either.
But you can keep on being smugly ignorant, with your wild accusations that you think give you some power or importance because no one expects better from you Nancy. And I note that you did not find any instances where I called you out for blogging from work — which was the claim I was disputing. But there go those cognitive abilities again.
Bet our readers would love to hear what you find out from Loretta Walsh about friends vs. political allies or cronies. It is Sunday evening so I imagine she is home. Check in with her and let us know what she says, why don’t you?
Whatever. I miss Lee Ann’s comments.
Here I am, anonone. Thanks for missing me. This is not a state computer by the way.
I don’t give a shit that you prefer to draw the line where you draw it when it comes to friendship vs politics. Doesn’t it really fall in that we work for our friends in politics? You don’t exactly have much of point even though you are enjoying drilling it.
As for calling Ms. Walsh over a blog convo? Gee, I have your phone number too (published with your civic assn). Since this is about you, why don’t I just call you up and ask you since you can’t seem to type out what you mean. WHACK! Just type it woman.
BTW – I can’t figure out what you are reading since I never said anything about your having commented on my blogging from work…yo. Seriously WHACK Cass. I think I said it all already. You are projecting your own fears and suppositions and perhaps your own perception of power? Twisted.
I occasionally read over the threads where you are simply pleasuring for a fight and witness how much you relish endless finger-f**king with Anonone and others, so I hope you don’t mind if I leave you to it. I’m out. But you go girl! get it on!
Well since you were the one who started this bit of back and forth by insisting that I was one of Loretta’s political *allies*, I’ll take the fact that you won’t even indulge in some basic fact-checking with the pol involved as a stipulation that you were dead wrong here.
Just don’t come over here to start something you can’t finish, would be the lesson, Ms. Cognitive Abilities.
Hey Lee Ann, did you really slip that OMB report to Ron Williams and indicate that he could call it over? Bad bad girl!
Cass, like I said, it is the most minimal of points when it comes to friends and politics when the person at hand happens to be a political animal like you. It is silly to try to draw a line.
I promise you that I will engage Loretta Walsh the next time I see her. I am not going to indulge you and cold call her over this convo. But I will ask her about your friendship and your political views if you like. (also, curiously, I don’t equate being aligned with being allies. Being aligned is to be of a mind, compatico of philosphy not allied. get it swift?)
Right, Ms. Cognitive Abilities — your usual bullshittery is still bullshit and still wrong. Too bad for you that you keep investing in it.
Is cassandra_m the same as cassandra m?
I will probably get attacked for this, and should probably get back to my actual work, but after reading the posts from over the weekend I have one bit of advice to many who post here. It seems to me it doesn’t serve a useful purpose to engage in personal attacks against people who post. I’m not saying one should not lambaste a politician, or point out the foolishness of a post, but the name calling, IQ remarks, etc, does bring the debate to a level that cheapens both sides of an argument. When people find out I’ve lived most my life in the Midwest they tell me how nice people from Iowa are, especially people who worked there in the past on political campaigns. I don’t see the difference as stark as they do. Midwesterners are more friendly and open, as a general rule, but it isn’t a genetic attribute, it is a learned behavior. As a creature of habit I act the same way here in Delaware (or on vacation when I still lived in Iowa) as I did in Iowa. When I pay for gas at the convenience store, or buy clothes at the mall, I smile at the clerk as my order is being rung up, and ask him/her “how are you”, and engage in small talk. Almost without exception the clerk will respond sincerely and appreciatively for being seen as a human. The response from almost all strangers I interact is no different from the response I’d get back home. With the exception of one rather unpleasant women at the National Archives (who didn’t approve of my teenage son joking about the National Treasure movies, and snapped at him those aren’t real- Duh!) in the last 10 years I can’t think of any person on the East or West coast that was unfriendly to me (or my kids) when we were friendly to them. I don’t expect Cassandra, Nancy, Geezer, etc., to become best buddies, but it wouldn’t hurt if people would try and stick to their arguments on the subject and shy away from playground name calling. Again I’m not saying hold back on your criticism of a candidate, or the position taken on a post, I’ve told people their position isn’t reasonable or rational, and painstakingly pointed out why they were wrong, but I try to keep my criticism related to the actual point they advocate as opposed to a personal attack. Clearly there is a lot of past animosity among many who post here, and the personal attacks are not one sided, but I think if there was a bit more effort to avoid personal attacks that only demean the person posting, as opposed to criticizing positions, or disputing facts of earlier posts, more people would join in the discussion. I know more than once I have opted out of a discussion, or not joined at all because I didn’t care to be attacked personally. If people don’t want to join in a discussion, because they happen to agree with someone on an issue, who is routinely the subject of personal attacks by others, and they fear aligning themselves with that person on even a single issue will cause them to be persona non grata we all lose.
ID: I won’t rehash the last 10 years of civil war over the NCCo government, but the Navarro lawsuit, IMO, was part of a long-running feud between Gordon and Coons. I blame Navarro for carrying water for Gordon, nothing more or less. I believe he’d be just as good a sheriff as Walsh and, as a liberal, I’m in favor of spreading the wealth. Unlike some who posted above, I have nothing negative to say about him personally; he did his job better than a lot of those who preceded him.
As for the name-calling, oh well. Many of us are guilty of typing while angry. If I was interested in polishing it up before hitting send, I’d be writing for a newspaper, not posting comments on a web site.
Geezer, the name calling I was referring to related to calling the people posting school yard names, not calling Navarro, Coons, Gordon, or anyone else a name. I figure when you jump in the political water you have to accept the name calling/constructive and unconstructive criticism. However, when people who post here (and most other places) is called an idiot, their IQ is mocked it, discourages others from joining the debate. That was the point I was trying to make, not that people shouldn’t criticize current or past office holders.
On the Navarro, Coons, Gordon etc front, in the last 10-12 months I’ve learned some about the past, that seems destined to stay current, but will be the first to admit my knowledge is based on news articles, court decisions, and other documents on-line, and not the events happening in real time, or from any opinion I had about the players. My first couple months here I thought “Gordonberry” was a person’s last name, after being told I was cute for asking “what office does Gordonberry hold” (I’m too old to think “being cute” is a compliment) I started reading about the federal case, if for no other reason than to avoid looking like an idiot, or a “cute” outsider. I do think the fact I don’t know any of these people, and don’t have the bias that comes with knowing, and liking or hating the players I see the past differently.
I don’t understand how Navarro was carrying Gordon’s water when he sued Coons, Sapp, NCC and others after he was denied the promotion. At least according to the Courts September 2007 order Navarro was told he would be promoted to Sgt in early June of 2005, this was 6 months after Gordon was out of office, and more than a year after he was indicted. I would think he had enough to worry about with the indictment to go after Coons, I just don’t see the connection. According to the Courts order, and some post here confirm it, in late June 2005 Navarro was told why he didn’t get the promotion, and basically told if he didn’t start seeing things Coons way his job was on the line. It wasn’t quite that direct, but that was the implication. As a result he sued in federal court. The Courts order indicated that Coons was upset that Navarro defended Gordon at a police meeting. As it turns out, by the time the Court dismissed all Navarro’s lawsuit, except his action against Coons individually, Navarro’s predictions had all come to fruition, this could be because Navarro’s a good cop and saw through a political prosecution, or he was simply expressing wishful thinking in support of a friend. I would think regardless of anyone’s feeling about Gordon, most people wouldn’t support someone having their promotion denied because they verbally supported a friend in trouble? Hiring/firing/failing to promote (in non-political positions) to punish someone for their political views, or support of a politician is no less unconscionable when done by a Democratic officeholder, than when Republicans do it. The Bush DOJ refused to hire lawyers from Harvard and other Ivy League schools because they were perceived as “liberal” or Democrats. Instead they hired people from conservative religious right law schools that only recently received accreditation, and are still listed as the least academically respected law schools in the country. No one seems to dispute what Coons did, but because they don’t like Gordon, they don’t seem to have a problem with it.
Also even if Navarro was carrying Gordon’s water by suing Coons individually and as NCC County Executive, he couldn’t have done it if Coons didn’t give him the ammunition. If Coons hadn’t directed Levine to not only rub Navarro’s face in the fact that his public support of Gordon, months after Gordon was out of office and a private citizen, is what cost Navarro his promotion, Navarro wouldn’t have had a legal leg to stand on. Also I doubt Navarro needed any urging from Gordon, or anyone else to sue for being denied his promotion because of his support for Gordon (which violated his legal rights), I think most people in his position would have filed suit if we were in his shoes.
What bothers me about this whole Navarro Coons situation is everyone pretty much acknowledges Coons quashed the guy’s promotion for a position that is not a political position, because of the guy’s political friendships, and few have a problem with this type of conduct. It wasn’t my tax dollars at the time, but I also find it offensive that tax dollars were used to settle Navarro’s lawsuit days after the federal judge dismissed the county, and all county employee’s, and made clear that only Navarro’s lawsuit against Coons individually, not as County Executive (which the court dismissed) was going forward. In Iowa the papers would have gone nuts if this happened. There would have been calls for a criminal investigation. Maybe Delaware law allows payment of a personal settlement when an officeholder is sued as an individual (as opposed to in his official position) but I don’t understand why it would allow it. And what bothers me even more than the violation of Navarro’s rights, and the use of public funds to settle the lawsuit against Coons personally, is what Coons action says about him personally. A lot of people black ball people, and I don’t hold having the extinct to blackball against Coons (although wanting to do so, and following through are different), what I find offensive is Coons couldn’t just sit back and be satisfied knowing he screwed Navarro over, that wasn’t enough for him. Coons needed the satisfaction that comes from letting sure Navarro knew his promotion wasn’t really denied due to budget cuts. Coons need to have Navarro know he screwed him over is a seriously unattractive character flaw. It tells me Coons pettiness is greater than his intellect. A whole lot of people with degrees from far less prestigious schools would have known better than to direct Levine to tell Navarro why he wasn’t promoted.
As I said, I’m not going to rehash this case. Suffice it to say that Navarro wasn’t a “friend” of Gordon’s but an employee and, in a highly politicized police department, an ally.
The prosecution was “politically motivated” mainly in the view of the accused and their protector/defenders at The News Journal (one of the reasons R. Williams comes in for such scorn is his unflagging support for Gordon). Not a charge in that indictment was disproved, nor was any attempt made to disprove most of them. They spent millions of dollars trying to quash the indictment instead. Read the original indictment if you want to know why “Gordonberry” became a proper noun in NCCo.
In short, being from out of town might make you more objective in your view. In my view you’re hopelessly out of your depth. And I wouldn’t worry about Coons — he’s very unlikely to win.
BTW, knowing both people involved, I doubt Coons told Taylor to say what she said. He’s too circumspect, and she’s outspoken enough for it to have happened regardless. She had just come over from the newspaper to that job a few months before, and quickly showed that political flackery wasn’t in her blood.
ID, thanks for your attempt to school the mistresses of mean at Delaware Liberal. It is a welcome if futile effort.
Agreed with your last comments Geezer. At this point it is rehashing an event that occurred 4 years ago. Chris has nothing to lose by running–he has a chance to make a name statewide, and can still finish his term as County Executive for 2 more years.
Geezer – Didn’t ATL come from the PIO job at DHSS?
Geezer I actually would prefer Coons winning, although reading the Judge’s order dismissing all Navarro’s actions except the one against Coons, doesn’t make Coons look like someone I could learn to respect, I want a D in office, and I know Castle enough to know he isn’t who I want taking Biden’s seat.
As far as whether the prosecution was “politically motivated” that was my paraphrasing of what Navarro said. However, from my review of the orders, and News Journal articles on the case, and my general research of the Bush DOJ I think it was very much a politically motivated action. Whether Gordon was a good, bad or incompetent County Executive I have no clue, but it seems clear to me that there is a strong case that points to the prosecution being a politically motivated prosecution. I think people who refuse to consider the evidence supporting this are allowing their personal feeling to cloud their judgment.
Geezer you say: “Not a charge in that indictment was disproved, nor was any attempt made to disprove most of them.” You have repeatedly said you are a liberal, and yet you want a Defendant to disprove, or attempt to disprove allegations that the government not only did not prove in court, but the government dismissed? That is not a liberal view, that’s a Dick Cheney type view. Would you support warrant-less wiretapping on the basis of national security, and claim the people being tapped shouldn’t have a problem, unless they are doing something illegal? That is essentially what you are saying here.
The legal burden of proof in any criminal case is with the prosecution bringing the criminal action. A Defendant doesn’t have to prove anything until the government has produced sufficient evidence to support a conviction. If the government doesn’t carry it’s burden, the Judge is required to throw out the case on a directed verdict before the defense even has to try and put on his defense (other than any cross examination his attorney did of the governments witnesses). Your stating that Gordon never disproved the allegations is shocking. I’m sure your view of our system of justice is skewed in Gordon’s case, because of feelings you have towards Gordon, but please remember our system of justice requires the GOVERNMENT to prove its case, and no one should put that burden on the person charged.
I did read the original indictment, as well as stories in the News Journal before the indictment about county employees being asked who was the father of their new born, etc. I now understand how the term “Gordonberry” became popular, and frankly I don’t care about any relationship they had or didn’t have. What shocked me reading the indictment was allegations included were not only irrelevant, because even if true they failed to allege a crime, but clearly appeared to be included to get vile allegation out in public, that would never be allowed in a court room, in order to harm the Defendants in the court of public opinion.
Assuming for the sake of argument personal consensual relationships happened with NCC employees, how was that relevant to a single crime Gordon was charged with? It wasn’t, which is why the federal judge threw out 3 of the 5 schemes against Gordon. You are right as an outsider I have the benefit of not knowing these people, or having a stake for or against them, also I have read the documents from the Congressional Judiciary committee investigating political prosecutions, as well as Professor Shields studies. I do believe that there is strong evidence that this case (and far too many others) were politically motivated prosecutions. I wish the Obama administration wasn’t so interested in moving forward, and was willing to investigate the cases that at least appear to have been political prosecutions.
Former US Attorney Colm Connolly investigated the case for years before finally bringing charges. You note millions were spent trying to quash the indictment, regardless of the efforts made to try and prevent any indictment, Connolly did indict Gordon and others in May of 2004, almost 3 years after he opened his investigation. I assume you don’t fault a person subject to a criminal investigation the right to try and dissuade the government from bringing charges?
According to documents produced at a hearing in the Freebery case in March 2004, months before Connolly filed his indictment, he told the Vice Chair of the Delaware GOP that he needed to bring the case against Gordon soon, and planned to do so before Memorial Day. Connolly said he needed to have the case well on its way by summer because if Bush loses re-election Connolly will be out of office by spring. Connolly violated all sorts of canons of ethics by discussing a pending investigation with anyone outside the US Attorney’s office, and discussing it with a GOP big wig in this way is pretty strong evidence of Connolly’s political motivation. This also isn’t the first time Connolly gave GOP insiders the heads up. In 2002 Connolly told the candidate for NCC running against Chris Roberts that Roberts was going to be indicted, and the Democrats wouldn’t have time to find a replacement.
Connolly claimed politics didn’t come into play in the timing of his charges against Roberts, but the federal judge said contrary to Connolly’s representations otherwise, “the record clearly demonstrates that the indictment was timed with the 2002 election in mind.” That decision involving Connolly paints the picture of a rouge prosecutor, who the federal judge found to be unbelievable. She held no punches in her opinion regarding Connolly’s credibility. Without any more Connolly’s discussing his time table to indict Gordon with the GOP Vice Chair a couple months prior to the indictment, and his actions in the Roberts case would be enough for most unbiased observers to be concerned that the case against Gordon was politically motivated, add on what has been learned during the 2007 congressional investigations into DOJ, and it would require even biased people to at least consider the possibility that the case was an inappropriate political prosecution.
However, that isn’t all the evidence that causes me to think that this case was a political prosecution. In addition, Connolly included allegations in his indictment that scream out as inappropriate. I know from the newspaper articles critics claim the only reason that 3 of the schemes were thrown out were because the judge was old and from Philly. I happen to like Philly, but I agree the Judge is old, but that doesn’t mean his ruling wasn’t right. According to the court filings (available on Westlaw) and News Journal articles Connolly only appealed the scheme regarding Fieldstone. If the dismissal of the other two schemes were wrong Connolly would have appealed them as well. It makes no sense to leave out a good appeal issue.
Why did Connolly not appeal those claims (the sexual ones that didn’t allege a crime any way), when he was appealing Fieldstone. The only reason that makes sense is Connolly knew the appellate court would uphold the dismissal, and including those type of claims in his 3rd circuit appeal could have caused the court to uphold the dismissal of all three schemes, especially since the 3rd circuit struggled with the strength of the Fieldstone scheme against Gordon, the 3rd said the allegations against Gordon in the Fieldstone scheme was a close call, but sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. That’s not an indication that claim against Gordon had merit, just that on paper Connolly’s allegations are sufficient to continue to the next stage. Connolly himself later dismissed the Fieldstone scheme against Gordon in order to sever the trials; he told the court the case against Gordon on Fieldstone was weak.
Despite not appealing 2 of the 3 schemes against Gordon, Connolly later claimed those schemes were still in the case due to a technicality in the order. When the Court told Connolly his argument was a joke (not his actual words), Connolly said he’d appeal that decision to the 3rd circuit. The Court actually was right, the idea that after Connolly said in his first appeal to the 3rd circuit that he was not appealing the Courts dismissal of 2 of the 3 schemes (within the time required to appeal), that the Court hadn’t actually dismissed those claims, because it wasn’t in the format Connolly felt was required, but failed to discover until months later is not merely a weak legal argument, it’s a joke. The New Journal, and WDEL and others criticized the Judge for his criticism of Connolly, but their criticism was misplaced. The Judge was right Connolly’s argument was laughable, and contrary to WDEL’s criticism that the Judge should let the evidence in and let the jury decide, it is the judge’s place to dismiss invalid charges, and if the charges had validity Connolly would have appealed the district courts decision.
When Connolly appealed the district court judge’s refusal to recuse himself to the 3rd circuit, Connolly again failed to appeal the district courts dismissal of the 2 dismissed schemes. The News Journal bought into Connolly’s claim that the Judge erred and favored Gordon by dismissing these 2 schemes, however if these claims had an ounce of merit Connolly would have included it in his 3rd circuit appeal of the Judge’s refusal to recuse himself. Connolly actions speak louder than his words. To the press he complained about the courts order, and how his hands were tied, but his failure to ever appeal the 2 dismissed schemes in any of his appeals to the 3rd circuit, speak volumes to the lack of validity of these claims. Contrary to Connolly’s extra judicial comments if these schemes had any chance at being upheld at the 3rd circuit he would have upheld the district courts findings. The New Journal should have figured this much out.
All 3rd circuit appeal decisions are published in F2d; most district court decisions aren’t published. Presumably Connolly didn’t want a published decision of the 3rd circuit criticizing him for bring the two dismissed scheme against Gordon. According to the News Journal article Connolly claimed he dismissed the case against Freebery because the court wouldn’t allow him to parade witnesses to testify as to what a horrible boss she was. I admit Freebery does should like a very unpleasant person, but Connolly couldn’t possibly have thought the rules of evidence would allow him to have a trial on what an unpleasant CAO Freebery was, why employees complied with her orders wasn’t important to the criminal charges, the employee’s weren’t on trial for failing to do county work during county time, the only question was, did Freebery issue the orders.
Unlike in his case against Freebery where Connolly used the excuse that the courts failure to let him parade NCC employee’s to testify as to how unpleasant Freebery is caused him to offer Freebery a favorable plea agreement. Connolly didn’t even have an excuse for offering to dismiss all indictment charges in exchange for a guilty plea what Connolly called a misdemeanor record keeping tax charge. Gordon’s case wasn’t set for trial, and none of the evidence regarding Freebery’s management style that the court said Connolly couldn’t use against Freebery was relevant in the case against Gordon. According to the News Journal when the judge asked Connolly how he could accept a charge that wasn’t part of the indictment, and there was no evidence the charge was committed, Connolly told the judge he just wanted to get out from under the case.
I don’t know if I’m out of my depth in this case, but I do know if you just look at the court filings, and know a bit about how federal prosecutors normally act, this case seems to be a compelling case of prosecutorial misconduct.
lol. Takes all the sport out of this to discuss it with references. You ARE from out of town. 😀
Brooke I am new to Delaware, and I still don’t live in Wilmington proper, if that’s what you meant by “out of town”. Until moving to Delaware all I knew about the state (other than it’s Biden’s adopted home state) it’s where all my credit cards are issued, that it has the most business friendly corporate laws, so a lot companies are incorporated in Delaware, even though they really have no presence in Delaware, and it’s bigger than RI, but pretty small geographically.
I miss my home state, but enjoy being on the east coast and so close to NYC, DC, Philly, etc. I’m not sure whether your reference that discussing matters with references takes all the fun out of it, refers to the Gordon case, all issues, and whether you were joking. I admit I’m even more anal on the subject of political prosecutions, than other areas, but I still try to research subjects before forming opinions.
If I had unlimited wealth I would love spending a year or two investigating several dozen cases that appear to be political prosecutions, and then writing a book on the worst cases, but alas I don’t have the financial to take a year or two traveling to various locales to do the necessary research, but I wish I did. I do think the Gordon case is pretty interesting; it’s basically a case study on how easy pursuing a political prosecution. Most people charged with crimes are convicted, especially in federal court where between 2000-05 99% of people charged in federal court pled guilty to the charges, or were convicted which probably explains why most people, including me, usually assume a person charged with a crime is guilty. I’m sure if I lived in Delaware during the Gordon prosecution I would have assumed the guy was guilty, although even before the US Attorney firing scandal which blew up in 2007 I didn’t have great faith in the Bush DOJ.
I find it fascinating that people who have no problem believing the worst of the Bush administration, or Republican’s in general refuse to even consider the possibility that Connolly engaged in a political witch-hunt. Regardless of ones opinion of Gordon, I would think given the course the prosecution took, and what we’ve learned in Congressional hearings about the Bush DOJ that people would put aside their personal feelings about Gordon, and look just at the facts of the case. When I hear Geezer argue Gordon hasn’t proven the charges false I want to scream. Since when is someone who is charged with a crime required to prove anything? Why isn’t he asking why Connolly failed to prove anything in court? Bringing an indictment isn’t proving anything, it is a list of allegations, proof happens at trial. The belief that Gordon needs to prove his innocence is the damage of a political prosecution, an unproven allegation is just a bit less damaging than an actual proven allegation.
If someone told Geezer, or all the other liberals who refuse to consider that Gordon’s prosecution was a political witch-hunt that in another state, say North Dakota a Bush US Attorney, began investigating a Democratic Mayor, and members of his staff, within months of being sworn in as US Attorney. 3 years later he brings a 45-page indictment, and hold his only press conference while in office to announce the indictment of the Mayor and two aides. The indictment included salacious details of consensual sexual relationships that aren’t against any law and aren’t relevant to any of the felony charges. After a judge dismisses the part of the indictment that includes the salacious allegations, and chastises the US Attorney for including such irrelevant allegations, which would be clearly inadmissible, even if true, the US Attorney publicly, and in briefs to the appellate court states he isn’t appealing the dismissal of the salacious allegations. Months later the US Attorney falsely claims the salacious allegations are still in the case, and weren’t actually dismissed by the court. After the appeals court reinstates the only allegation the US Attorney appealed, the US Attorney again falsely claims the salacious allegations are still part of the case. The US Attorney then moves to sever the Mayor’s trial from that of his aides, even though two years earlier the US Attorney fought the Mayors attempt to sever his trial from his top aides trial. In order to justify his change of strategy the US Attorney dismisses the allegations against the Mayor that the appellate court had recently reinstated, and informed the judge that those allegations really only involved the Mayor’s aide. The US Attorney seeks to first go to trial against the Mayor’s aides, and asks the judge to continue the case against the Mayor indefinitely until after the trial of the aides. Despite the US Attorney claiming the out of state judge is favoring the Defendants, (which a review of the totality of the courts orders makes the claim laughable) the judge grants the US Attorney’s untimely motion to sever the trials. The US Attorney then files a motion to reinstate the salacious allegations against the mayor, and indicates in his motion that if the judge refuses to grant his motion to reinstate the salacious allegations the US Attorney will appeal the denial to the appellate court. After the Judge makes it clear the salacious allegations never had any merit, have already been dismissed, and aren’t a part of the case against the Mayor, the US Attorney does not follow through on his threat to appeal the courts refusal to reinstate the salacious allegations. Instead the US Attorney convinces the local media that the judge is bias against him and files an extensive brief with the appellate court seeking to have the judge removed from the case. The appeals court in a couple sentence ruling unanimously rejected the US Attorney’s attempt to have the trial judge removed. Shortly before trial against the Mayor’s aide the court rules evidence the US Attorney wants to introduce against the Mayors aide, in a claim that doesn’t involve the Mayor, is inadmissible, the US Attorney decides to drop the charges against the Mayors aide in exchange for a guilty plea to the only felony charge that involved did not involve an allegation of misconduct at work, but involved the lack of disclosure of financial matters on the aide’s personal loan documents. When the US Attorney entered into the favorable plea agreement with the Mayor’s aide, the Mayor’s case was not yet scheduled for trial. Days later the US Attorney offered to dismiss the 8 felonies he brought against the mayor, if the Mayor pled guilty to a misdemeanor record keeping tax violation. The US Attorney acknowledge that the misdemeanor tax charge wasn’t part of the indictment, and when the judge asked the US Attorney how he could in good faith accept a guilty plea that isn’t in the indictment, has never been alleged to have been violated, and there is no evidence the tax code was actually violated the US Attorney admits he just wants to get out from under the case, and is using the tax violation as the vehicle to get rid of the criminal charges. In addition the US Attorney was previously found to have timed an indictment of another Democratic officeholder to an election, and in the case against the Mayor the US Attorney told a high ranking member of the state’s GOP that he was going to bring charges against the Mayor by Memorial Day and he needed the case to be under way by the summer in case the Democratic nominee was elected President. If these were the facts stated against a generic Democrat in another state, Geezer and others who refuse to even consider that Connolly’s prosecution was political would have no problem agreeing that the US Attorney’s actions should be investigated. But because these facts (100% of which is a matter of record) involve Gordon, those that have already formed an opinion can’t reconsider there past assumption of guilt.
It seems to me it doesn’t serve a useful purpose to engage in personal attacks against people who post.
Sure it does. Especially when those people are 1) purposely misrepresenting you or 2) basically here as an exercise in displaying their over-reliance on the talking point narratives of the day.
I lived in the Upper Midwest for awhile myself. And while people are certainly very nice, they aren’t especially tolerant of people who make a point of trashing other people — and especially making up their own narratives to do that. So perhaps you haven’t been reading long (although this: But because these facts (100% of which is a matter of record) involve Gordon, those that have already formed an opinion can’t reconsider there past assumption of guilt. would indicate otherwise — we haven’t talked about this here for a very long time) to know that Nancy Willing has been making a point of making up narratives about me for some time now. To what end, who knows, but these would be among them:
*that I was part of some gay Democratic cabal out to do something nefarious (posted on another blog, who actually pulled these comments)
*that I’m subject to some special ongoing investigation into my involvement into some shady county contracts
None of it true, of course and not a single apology or even acknowledgment of a mistake has ever been forthcoming from her about spreading this bullshit around.
Add to that the constant references to being able to contact me (and has had people call me about at least one post or set of them. I never returned those calls.), or crazy presumptions she makes about my relationships to various people and it just adds up to somebody with some real issues who seems to be trying to work them out by trying to intimidate me.
Which just doesn’t happen. But I will correct the record and do that my any means necessary when this fantasy crap gets posted here. That may be pedantic and not fun to read, but I’m not about to just let these kind of lies and disinformation to be left unchallenged. And really, if you’ve been reading here long enough you also know that that the wrong in any form — whether you are dealing with one of the posters or if you are pushing the talking points of the day gets you no quarter. And nor should it.
Iowa Dem, I was being a little sardonic. 😉
We’re a small state. Takes real energy to get anyone in our politics to 6 degrees of separation… runs about 3, usually. So anyone who wasn’t having lunch with person A was coaching soccer for their sister’s kid the day after.
This has enabled us to be a shining beacon of bipartisanship, traditionally. Also makes it difficult to sort out anyone’s motivations along traditional larger state lines. Add to that the way the canal makes the important distinction (particularly as impacts the Democratic party) and you have a political landscape that owes a lot to direct experience and point of view. Also quite a bit to um, “networking”.
I was born and brought up here, but most people who know me would describe my POV as ‘unique’ and the very fact I’m running for Senate indicates to some people I’m hopelessly naive. I just never have troubled myself with an analysis of political expediency. I have too much on my plate trying to get up in the morning and be a good mother and a good citizen. People who care about that stuff can sort it out.
So, Connelly may have been scoring points, Gordon may have been protected by the powerful, it may all have been some medieval morality play, planned for the voting public. Until very recently, you could count on everyone going out for a beer afterwards, whatever the merits of an issue. Was that a good thing? I kinda doubt it. Is the new system better? Probably not.
But you can mostly figure anyone local reading this has a mind full of what they heard from folks who could blow the lid off something or other, but don’t. It’s unusual and interesting for me to hear your point of view, as a more research minded person. That’s why I commented on your being from out of town. 😉
‘sokay, Cassandra. I haven’t been reading here all that long, but I’ve seen this go-round before. I’m sure it gets tiring.
Just to set the record straight, my suggestion that people avoid name-calling was not limited to any person, or meant to support anyone. When I mentioned “Cassandra, Geezer and Nancy” by name, it was because name-calling had occurred in their posts on this subject. I was not implying Nancy needed, or deserved protection. Yesterday when Nancy thanked me, I should have responded that I was including her as some one who resorts to name-calling, and not seeking protection for her, especially given in thanking me Nancy did exactly what I suggested would be preferable to avoid, and by doing so gave support to the statements in Cassandra’s post last night! Take my advice for what it’s worth. I disagree personal attacks advance your point, because I believe they not only degrade the debate, and can intimidate people who otherwise would join in the debate, but clearly personal attacks haven’t resulted in the person attacked from responding in kind. Also with respect to the merit of the substance of much of the back more often than not I have no clue as to who is right. Most of the back and forth appears to be about development issues, and those usually aren’t black and white, and I don’t know the history.
With respect to my reference to people who refuse to consider that the prosecution was political, other than Geezer who specifically said it was not a political prosecution, I wasn’t referring to any specific people who regularly post. It’s clear many on this site aren’t fans of Gordon, whether because of things he did or didn’t do in office, or because the indictment, or other reasons, I don’t know, but when people link a friendship with Gordon as a negative, one does surmise they aren’t fond of Gordon. Since I learned “Gordonberry” is not an individual, and began independent research of his prosecution (a sort of past time of mine, and not limited to the Gordon case) I’ve heard many people express the same views as Geezer. I’ve listened to debates at parties between supporters and foes, and after I felt I knew enough first hand about the criminal case (i.e. from reading the court filings, court orders, and newspaper articles) I joined in the defense. What surprised me more than the fact well educated liberals believed the indictment involved areas even Connolly never alleged, was the complete unwillingness of a number of people who agree former US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan’s prosecution of Cyril Wecht was politically motivated to even entertain the possibility that Gordon’s prosecution was politically motivated. I should have been clearer that other than Geezer who specifically said the case wasn’t a political prosecution the “people” I was referring to were people I’ve talked to in person.
The reason I refuse to believe the charges were politically motivated is twofold:
1) When the investigation that led to the charges was being conducted, the “political motivation” the Gordon team was trumpeting was Connolly’s own supposed political ambition. To further this notion, Gordon trotted out his asshole buddy Larry Sullivan, the Republican chief public defender, to claim that Connolly had told him (Sullivan) of this supposed vast ambition. Funny how the “political motivation” morphed, when convenient, into orders from the White House. Funny indeed, considering that A) the Gordonberry legal team included Victorian Toensing, who was plugged into the anti-Democrat DoJ, yet there was never any hint of such a motivation until the issue became a hot potato, and B) it was later revealed that Connolly was on a list of candidates for firing by the Bush DoJ, so how did the Gordon prosecution benefit him? Add to that the fact that nobody was going to impress the Bushies by taking down a county executive, and these claims fail to pass the first test of logic, that is — where was the benefit to Connolly?
2) I personally know all these people, and you don’t, and I know how they operate, and you apparently don’t. I have interviewed people on those “salicious” tapes you mention, and you haven’t. I know that those charges might not have equalled crimes, but that doesn’t mean the acts they spelled out didn’t happen.
In short, pack your conspiracy theories up and ship them to Iowa. For you this is partisan. For me this is about the people involved. One of them is the sleaziest politician I have met in 30 years of professional contact with politicians, and one of them was the most by-the-book prosecutor I ever met in that same career.
I hope you don’t take this personally, but in the vernacular, your head is up your ass. I don’t mean that as an ad hominem attack, either. Your position boils down to “if I didn’t know what happened, I would think Gordon was innocent.” That’s nice, but keep in mind, your opening statement there is an admission of ignorance. I see no reason to take your or your conspiracy theory seriously.
heh, now Cassandra I am glad you finally let go of all that frustration. As to the hyperbolic stant of your points —
*that I was part of some gay Democratic cabal out to do something nefarious (posted on another blog, who actually pulled these comments)”
That was an evening that I was indeed drunk and wrote something I shouldn’t have. Once. On one thread. A comment that you yourself have built a mythology around.
And this —
*that I’m subject to some special ongoing investigation into my involvement into some shady county contracts”
was a perfectly reasonable assumption on the part of anyone who reads your sugar-coating of Chris Coons, your fluff pieces etc. and wonders why? What was motivating that obsequious fawning? Believe me or don’t but people are wondering.
The one who called and said they were ‘looking into whether your company had county contracts’ is a friend of mine and in fact wrote one of the comments on this very thread.
We all know that this county is loaded to the gills with sleazy people making boatloads of cash –the ones who go to jail have all been Democrats in county council selling their votes to who’s buying: development interests. None of them ever get nailed until the feds show up every ten years. So I am sure I’ll be forgiven if I raised a few questions about you, considering your field of employment.
You’re fawning posts about Coons raise questions. They have been very similar in tone to what county beat News Journal reporter, Angie Basiouny used to write about Chris. She also never missed an opportunity to sugar-coat what was really going on at county hall under Mr. Coons’ supervision and now she’s working directly for him.
The most prominent person who went to jail over county land-use shenanigans was in fact a Republican, Kermit Justice, working in a state job, DelDOT secretary, which at the time played a major role in deciding which projects could move forward and which could not. Votes were not what was being sold.
Believe it or not, Nancy, some of us have seen the things you accuse Coons of for many more years than Coons has been involved in politics. There has NEVER been a county government that has cracked down on builders and developers, for the simple reason that it’s too important to too many very, very well-heeled people. Chris Coons is a symptom, not the disease.
Iowa Dem, Geezer and I are pretty friendly in real space. 🙂
Well Geezer, I was talking about county land use Aeillo (sp?) and the Chris / Harry Roberts / Mario Capano stings. And because Coons ‘doesn’t crack down’ doesn’t excuse it.
What is going on now is more open. The builders and the attornies have full control over county land use right now. The changes made to the UDC in the last two years are under everyone’s radar. Much due to Angie Basiouny’s scandalously bad reporting. I have spoken to a few people at the WNJ and they are all embarrassed.
In a few weeks there is going to be a new county reporter from out of town who is supposed to be an ace investigator and I sure am looking forward to working with he/she.
We are installing new officers in the Civic League tonight who really mean business. It’s a whole new ball game.
Remember, my father was on the county Levy Court with Harry Roberts and had to swat the then youthful John Daniello around. He got out because of the rampant sleaze then – mid 1950’s. So, yeah, I know nothing has changed.
Gordon did great things working with the civic groups and putting in the UDC. I guess it is like a pendulum –the good, the bad, the good, the bad –power in and power out. He is no saint, but he did piss off the developers and now they have what they want.
Nancy, Sherry was taking money to cut land use deals for her friends. That is completely unacceptable and is no way a glowing endorsement of the last administration!! Every land use dept anywhere has to balance between allowing landowners to responsibly develop their properties while considering the environmental/social/economic impacts of said development. Just because you aren’t happy when development is happening doesn’t mean it is criminal.
confused again Geezer.
A) Kermit Justice was Sec of Transportation, not a county official.
B) He went to jail for condemming property for road projects that were never built and then selling the land cheap to developer friends. This was happening in all three counties.
Nothing to do with County corruption (of which there was and is plenty)
the UDC took the oppoertunity for corruption away from the elected councilmembers and anchored it firmly in the Gordon cadre of appointees.
Wow, saw Chip last night at the Wilmington meeting and he is impressive. I know Velda, who is nice, but she seems to want to attack Chip’s credentials. Why would anyone say that someone with three graduate degrees (from Harvard, Georgetown and Penn) are not qualified? It seems crazy, but I couldn’t point it out in the room last night. If someone knows her, please tell her to stop because makes her look pretty stupid. Especially since she has an engineering degree and only a MBA.
Otherwise, it is going to be a good race. By the way, Stephanie Bolden asked Chip a question about his plan, but first acknowledged that she hadn’t read it! It was such an obvious plant for Velda! Both are good, but Velda serums to be playing a little dirty and it will not play well if she continues.
I agree with you ProChip, I think his billboards and plan are working for him. I just asked a party official how many endorsements Markell received in New Castle County – it was 2 out of 24!!! Unreal! Flowers already has 3, so he is beating Markell! Not sure these endorsements mean anything.
*sigh*
This thread is depressing. Makes me feel old.
I don’t know why so few people seem to feel the need to find candidates for office that aren’t hopelessly corrupt. When I bring up that our first responsibility is to find caring, ethical people to hold office, mostly folks just look surprised. 🙁
See, Schwartz, I always like it when you come out from behind your links, because you show your faulty thinking when you do.
a) is exactly what I said.
b) quote from TNJ archives: “DelDOT was headed then by Republican Kermit Justice, who later went to prison for extorting a bribe from an FBI agent posing as a crooked developer.”
IIRC, the agent pretended to have an option on a piece of land near Buena Vista, and KJ promised he’s get the needed transportation permits. Again, IIRC, the guy on the county end was the aforementioned Harry Roberts. Nancy can correct that if I’m wrong.
anon: Some of us have never believed the loan had anything to do with Fieldstone. Such a piddling request, which the Philly judge opined was nothing but normal constituent service, simply isn’t worth $2.7 million.
Read Dominick Dunne on Lisa Dean Moseley sometime. You might find yourself wondering how, or why, a former police chief/lawyer and a notoriously hard-drinking heiress became such close friends.
“Why would anyone say that someone with three graduate degrees (from Harvard, Georgetown and Penn) are not qualified?”
Other than for grammatical reasons, perhaps because he has accomplished so little despite such impressive credentials. That’s not an ad hominem attack, it’s a fair question — what has he done?
I hope your silly little staged exchange isn’t Chip’s idea of cleverness.
Geezer, you are just awful – forgive the typo (but I am more than happy to compare my SAT scores to yours -1510 – what was your score you moron)! What has Velda accomplished? Last time we checked, Velda is the Treasurer, not Chip!
According to his website, he has started his own firm representing Harvard, Dupont, Bank of America, Barclays, etc. He worked at the White House and Capital Hill and the world’s top law firm, Skadden Arps. I counted about 15 civic organizations on his website.
Chip doesn’t need to schedule an exchange, I think your candidate Velda Jones Potter is going to lose, because she has morons like you supporting her and she lied about not wanting to seek the office. You want to continue, I can go all night. I haven’t even started about her husband Charles Potter and his antics or how Velda lost all the money for the PAL Center. Chip seems to be too nice to stick that wood up Velda’s as-, but we will you moron.
I’ve either missed something in the past, or I don’t recall Geezer ever calling any support in that Treasurer Primary.
Wow, I’ve seen Geezer called many things (and heard it, too), but I guess this may be a first…translate the rant, and Geezer was just called an Impartial Hack! How dare you stand impartial and criticize one side and the other! 😛
Now, I can only hope I didn’t miss him choosing sides and he has been impartial in this. 😯
Sorry, I had to stick up for ProChip. We all make typos.
Geezer, you are not alone in refusing to believe that Connolly’s prosecution was politically motivated. However the reasons you give for refusing to entertain the possibility the prosecution was politically motivated don’t stand up to close scrutiny. I don’t care what Gordon or his lawyers claimed, or didn’t claim before, during or after the prosecution. I’ve read the articles where Gordon said it was a political witch-hunt (my interpretation, not a direct quote). The fact a Defendant believes a prosecution was politically motivated doesn’t move me. Blagojevich claims Patrick Fitzgerald’s prosecution is politically motivated, but that’s as laughable as his Elvis hairdo. In early 2007 while I still lived in Iowa, Matt McCoy, a gay Democratic State Senator from Des Moines was indicted in federal court for extortion unrelated to his elected office. McCoy initially claimed he was targeted because he’s Iowa’s only openly gay legislator. This was before the US Attorney firing scandal broke. Even though the USA for the So. District of Iowa is part of Iowa’s religious right wing of the GOP the idea that he’d target a legislator because of sexual oreintation seemed improbably. After the USA firing scandal broke McCoy’s lawyer’s claimed he was targeted because his political party not sexual oreintation. I didn’t think an Iowa USA would engage in a political prosecution, and assumed it was litigation/political strategy.
But in December 2007 news media’s coverage of McCoy’s trial none of the damning evidence the USA claimed to have against McCoy materialized, this wasn’t because a judge excluded evidence, the evidence to support the allegations just didn’t exist. In less than two hours (which included the jurors meal at a local restaurant) McCoy was acquited on all charges. In media interviews the jurors said the prosecutor’s star witness (McCoy’s former business partner) who was paid by the government to help investigate McCoy, and wore a wire for the investigation, was a complete liar. Acquittals in federal court in Iowa are rare, I was told by a Des Moines Attorney it was the only acquital while Whitaker was USA, given the claims Whitaker made against McCoy compared to the actual evidence at trial if Whitaker was required tio defend (in court) a charge he brought an illegal political prosecution, he’d have a hard time proving otherwise.
I don’t see the change from Gordon (or his attorney’s) initially believing Connolly’s investigation/indictment was due to Connolly’s political ambitions, to believing it was part of a larger plan to take down Democrats as remarkable. Why would anyone in 2004-late 06/early 07 fathom the extent of the politicization of the Bush DOJ? Even after the USA firing scandal broke, and I watched the hearings, read the documents produced to congress I didn’t think for a minute McCoy’s prosecution was a baseless political prosecution. It wasn’t until Whitaker was forced to prove his allegations against McCoy in court, and the complete lack of a valid case was exposed, that McCoy’s attorney’s claim of a baseless political prosecution appeared to have validity.
Unlike Whitaker, Connolly never tried his case against Gordon. Instead Connolly blamed others, and made excuses, that were false, regarding why he was unable to prove his case, that he already tried in the media in court. Connolly dropped every single indictment charge against Gordon, in exchange for a plea to a misdemeanor Connolly admitted never happened, and which Connolly told the court was just a vehicle to make the case to go away, that alone should raise questions about Connolly’s prosecution.
If Connolly ever had a decent case against Gordon he would have gone to trial. I believe Connolly didn’t want to do what Whitaker was forced to do when McCoy refused to accept any plea. By dropping all indictment charges Connolly avoids exposing the lack of admissible evidence to support his charges against Gordon, and is able to (falsely) blame the judge’s rulings on his inability to prove the case. The harm after years of the investigation and Connolly trying the case in the press already almost as much damage as a conviction would have brought.
You do admit that Connolly told the media, and 3rd circuit in his appeal of Fieldstone scheme dismissal, that he wasn’t appealing the other 2 dismissed schemes (the ones that included the salacious allegations) right? You would also admit that after he filed his first appeal brief (appealing Fieldstone), and the defendants responded Connolly then claimed that he just noticed (or realized/discovered) that the Judge had not technically dismissed the other two schemes, because he hadn’t used the right format (not a direct Connolly quote, but the gist of it), right? If the Judge really had screwed up the format back in June of 2005 when he issued his order dismissing 3 of 5 schemes, why didn’t Connolly notice it when he specifically stated in his first Fieldstone brief to the 3rd circuit that he wasn’t appealing the courts dismissal of the other two schemes? And if either of these two schemes, which included the salacious allegations had any legal merit, why didn’t Connolly appeal their dismissal in the fall of 2005 when he appealed Fieldstone? It makes no sense to not include them unless Connolly knew the 3rd circuit would be as direct as the trial court regarding the inappropriateness of the allegations (both because they alleged no illegal conduct, and contained inadmissible salacious allegations, solely to inflame the jury). I can think of no other reason not to appeal their dismissal, can you? If the court wasn’t right when he dismissed the two schemes Connolly never appealed, why did Connolly fail to appeal the Courts refusal to reinstate the two schemes, as Connolly threatened to do in August of 2006 in his motion to reinstate? Most USA’s don’t engage in veiled threat to the bench, and yet Connolly clearly stated if the court refuses to reinstate the two dismissed schemes, which the court not only refused to do, but at the hearing made it clear he thought Connolly couldn’t possibly be serious in his desire to pursue those claims. Connolly, according to the news reports took umbrage at the schooling he received from the Judge, and yet he doesn’t follow through on his threat to appeal the dismissal/refusal to reinstate the two dismissed schemes, and instead he appeals the judge’s refusal to step aside due to Connolly’s claim of bias. The 3rd circuit rejected that appeal in just a few sentences.
Actually I see Connolly’s presence on one of the lists of USA’s to consider firing differently than you do. You see it as proof that Connolly couldn’t have engaged in a political prosecution, or his name wouldn’t have made a list. However, several name of USA attorney’s who weren’t fired, but whose names appeared on one of the lists has been accused of engaging in political prosecutions of local Democrats. For example U.S. Attorney Biskupic of Wisconsin was on one of the list, and after his conviction of Georgia Thompson, which the 7th circuit not only reversed but ordered her immediate release that day, during the oral arguments on her appeal, and stopped short of stating directly Biskupic engaged in a political prosecution. You see Connolly’s inclusion on one of the lists as proof he wasn’t a loyal Bushie, but you ignore that after his name was on the list Connolly filed a frivilous motion to have the judge kicked off, and was publicly threathening to appeal the dismissal of the two schemes with the salacious allegations, and then his name was not on the next list. It is just as likely that in early 2006 after taking the Freebery bank fraud case to a draw Connolly lost interest in the case, and people at the DOJ promoting these political prosecutions were unhappy with the way the case was going/Connolly’s lack of interest, and after Connolly showed renewed interest in the case to the point of trying to get the judge removed, and threatening to appeal the two dismissed schemes, the people within the DOJ behind these activities had renewed faith in Connolly.
With respect to your argument: “nobody was going to impress the Bushies by taking down a county executive” that would sound reasonable in isolation, which was the beauty (in a very sick Rovian way) of the targeting of local Democratic officeholders. These local Democratic office holders seem too unimportant to be a target, which is why the local people don’t consider it a real possibility, and laugh off a Defendant’s claim that the prosecution is politically motivated. Also as the study of Professors Shields and Cragan (from January 2001-December 2006) of Federal prosecutions of elected office holders (or candidates, or political appointees) non-federal and non-statewide Democratic officeholders were investigated (and prosecuted) under the Bush DOJ over 7 times more often than GOP counterparts. As the Professor’s found by keeping political profiling at the local level, the national media doesn’t connect the dots, because each Mayor, Council member, state senator, or County Executive is viewed as an isolated incident rather than an example of a broader pattern of the Bush DOJ.
While I’m not used to this county form of government (Iowa has 99 counties, and county supervisors aren’t seen as big power players, even in the more populated counties), if you look at the type of officeholder who has been prosecuted under Bush’s DOJ, they include people with a lot less power than the NCC County Executive. Georgia Thompson was a bureaucrat in Wisconsin, McCoy a low ranking state senator. Your view that a lowly County Executive is too unimportant to be targeted is one reason it took so long for the trend to be discovered.
You ask: “where was the benefit to Connolly?” I can’t get into the man’s head, nor do I believe this practice of targeting local Democrats was happening in every office of US Attorney. I don’t know whether Connolly was encouraged to investigate local Democrats, or if he was flying solo. If he was flying solo, I couldn’t tell you his motivation. Also what office in Delaware that isn’t a state wide, or federally elected office has more power than the NCC County Executive, that’s a serious question? I’ve been told by people asking me to financially support Coons, that the office of NCC County Executive is the biggest non-state wide, or federal office holder in Delaware. If this is true, then Gordon was the biggest officeholder Connolly could go after, and stay under the national media radar.
You mention that you personally know all these people, how they operate, and have interviewed people on those “salacious” tapes, that you claim I mentioned. Actually I don’t believe I mentioned the hours of tape, which as I understand were mostly from two sisters, and Freebery’s ex-fiancé. You seem to fail to grasp, I have never claimed Gordon, or anyone else was an angel, I’ve tried to make it clear I have no idea if he was an ok, good or horrible County Executive, and I have no clue if the salacious accusations are true, although I do recall the women with the sexual harassment claim against Chris Roberts was interviewed by the paper, after Connolly said he wasn’t appealing that scheme’s dismissal, and said the allegations involving Gordon (and her) were false. In Connolly’s motion to reinstate those allegations, he lists the witnesses that would prove the salacious allegations, and doesn’t include her. If the allegations were true, which she said they aren’t, and relevant, which the court said they weren’t, she is the only person who could testify about the incidents, because coming from anyone else the testimony would be hearsay. And yet Connolly lists her lawyer (saying he would say she told me this-which clearly is inadmissible). Connolly’s failure to list her as a source of the allegation supports her statements in the interview that the incident never happened.
However, lets assume for sake of argument that 100% of the salacious allegations Connolly made in the indictment, and other court filing was true, why did he not appeal the dismissal of the two schemes that involve the salacious allegations? There are only two explanations. Despite what you have been told is on the tapes (I’m sure you haven’t heard the actual tapes because they are sealed, and I doubt Connolly would blatantly violate the courts order), the tapes aren’t great as Connolly has represented them to be, or they are juicy but legally irrelevant. Contrary to Connolly’s repeated claims to the media, the court never ruled the tapes couldn’t be admitted in Gordon’s (or Freebery’s) trial, only that they were sealed until trial, and would be admissible at trial pursuant to the regular rules of evidence. In other words if they are relevant to a charge against Gordon, as oppose to merely scandalous, or likely to cause a juror to think less of Gordon, the tapes would have come in. Connolly took the position the trial judge was required to rule on relevancy of the tape excerpts he wanted admitted at trial in advance of trial, and the 3rd circuit rejected Connolly’s position, and upheld the judge’s position that relevancy decisions are to be made at trial.
You admit: “I know that those charges might not have equaled crimes, but that doesn’t mean the acts they spelled out didn’t happen.” Please listen to yourself, you claim your feelings regarding Gordon don’t cloud your judgment, but you actually advocate that evidence (especially about consensual affairs-come on!) that isn’t illegal, should be included in a federal indictment. Seriously this is the US, we have a wonderful constitution, and this isn’t some banana republic. I don’t care if every seedy allegation is true, no US Attorney should make any allegations against any defendant that he knows, or should know if he graduated from law school, not only isn’t evidence of a crime, but is inadmissible under the rules of evidence. To be ok with that type of conduct is amazing. If Connolly knew that the allegations were false, or they were true, but they weren’t evidence of a crime, or that under the federal rules of evidence no judge would admit the evidence, his inclusion of the allegations was a violation of federal law. I think Connolly knew the allegations weren’t a crime, I won’t speculate on whether he believed them to be true, but even the dumbest attorney on earth would know no federal judge would admit the salacious allegations at trial. Connolly’s inclusion of these salacious allegations in the indictment, and his efforts to keep them in the media after he elected not to appeal their dismissal is strong evidence of Connolly’s engaging in an illegal political prosecution.
You claim Connolly is one of “the most by-the-book prosecutor I ever met in that same career.” If that is true that speaks poorly of past Delaware USA’s. Judge Robinson, (a Delaware federal judge not a Philly judge) in her August 2003 ruling in Chris Roberts case made it clear that Connolly had made false representations to the court, legal talk for he lied to the court. Lawyers in other states get disbarred for that conduct. She credited FBI agent Troy as the only “credible” government witness (in other words Connolly and his assistants weren’t credible in their sworn testimony!) Troy testified Connolly’s indictment of Roberts was with the election in mind (a violation of federal rules USA’s are required to adhere to). In addition to the damning statements regarding Connolly’s lack of credibility (under oath no less) in 2003, less than a year later in March 2004 Connolly told a Delaware GOP leader that he would indict Gordon by Memorial Day, and went so far as to tell him that he (Connolly) needed to get the case against Gordon moving before the summer in case Bush loses re-election. That is not conduct of an ethical, let alone a by the book prosecutor! Discussing the Gordon investigation at all, let alone with a political leader where political considerations are discussed is a violation of the law. Do you not believe Judge Robinson’s scathing assessment of Connolly’s sworn testimony? Do you not know that according to an e-mail sent by the Policy Director of the Delaware GOP almost 2 months before Connolly indicted Gordon, Connolly discussed the criminal investigation against Gordon, and Connolly’s time line to indict Gordon, (which matched the timeline of the indictment) and Connolly’s concern that the case had to be going by the summer in case Bush loses the election? If you are aware of Connolly’s actions in bringing the case against Roberts with the election in mind, and informing GOP leaders in advance of his timeline to indict Roberts, and doing it again a year after getting caught doing this by a federal judge, how can you claim Connolly’s ethical, these are violations of the canons of ethics, not to mention federal law!
With respect to where my head is, while I used to be very flexible, I never could quite accomplish the feat you accuse me of. Seriously I never said because I don’t know the people I know the truth. I also never discussed Gordon’s innocence, etc, it’s true he was never tried on a single indictment charge, and USA’s don’t normally drop charges that are valid, and can be proven, especially high profile cases. That just defies credibility. I don’t think you would think Gordon was innocent is you didn’t know him. I do believe if you didn’t so clearly despise the guy you would have greater objectivity regarding whether Connolly engaged in a political prosecution, that’s not the same thing as believing Gordon’s never done bad things.
With respect to my moving back to Iowa, I would need to break up my family in order to move back to Iowa, and I prefer not to
We all make typos.
No problem. Embracing our own faults is a wonderful thing and allows for humility. Deflecting them and flinging them upon others is shallow and allows for conceit.
Now, I still can only hope I didn’t miss Geezer choosing sides and he has been impartial in this! 😛
OMG, then suddenly, a novel appears between my comment and True’s.
Iowa – Roberts lost a 2002 Primary to Patty Powell. You lost me with your timeline in motivations there. Don’t take it wrong, I’m not trying to throw this out, just following along. It takes a while to read your accounts! 😛
That was an evening that I was indeed drunk and wrote something I shouldn’t have. Once. On one thread. A comment that you yourself have built a mythology around.
And this would be the source of most of all of the made up narratives that you think fluff up your cred.
was a perfectly reasonable assumption on the part of anyone who reads your sugar-coating of Chris Coons, your fluff pieces etc. and wonders why? What was motivating that obsequious fawning? Believe me or don’t but people are wondering.
First — no one is wondering except you. Second, you can’t sleaze away the original bit of sleaze which is right here. You were clear that you knew of two people conducting an investigation — but now you are just making assumptions. Right. And the person who you had call me wasn’t about county contracts. But if you really knew something about my work, you wouldn’t even go down this path of making shit up.
And of course there is more. And of course, I’ll keep pointing out what a completely unhinged and disgraceful liar you are. You can’t even keep your own damn stories straight. But then again you probably found your best competence cutting and pasting other people’s material. I suggest you stick to that, so you don’t have to worry your pickled mind on keeping your own damn fictions straight.
Iowa: Well, you’re certainly a persistent cuss, and I have to commend you for dismissing the concerns off all those who know more about this than you do.
You have a simplistic attitude, that people are either guilty or not, and there are several details wrong in your account: The tapes would no longer be under seal if anyone asked for them. Rather odd, isn’t it, that the state’s largest newspaper never has? Also, no tape was made of “Freebery’s fiance.” The person in question was married to someone else.
I don’t have time to educate you, (particularly not here, because Gordon and Freebery are two of the most vindictive people I have ever met). Folks here know who I am, know how much time I spent on this when I was virtually the only person in the state willing to stand against them, and know exactly how true those allegations were. I really couldn’t care less whether paying off a blackmailer with $260,000-odd is a crime — I just know it’s wrong.
You are essentially saying that, because you think Bush politicized the DoJ, nothing else matters. What you will never be able to find through your research is what really went on, because so much of it was quashed.
Here’s the bottom line: They ran the county like a couple of thugs, and particularly spent public money as if it were their own. I couldn’t care less about whether they were convicted — the important thing is that they and their odious brand of politics were ousted.
Rsmitty- Roberts did lose the 2002 primary, and I understand your confusion and I’m sorry. The timeline I got was from the court order in the Roberts case. According to Judge Sue Robinson’s order (280 F. Supp 2d 325), the FBI learned of the allegations against Roberts shortly before his re-election in 98, but waited until after the election to begin an investigation, because federal rules caution against actions that can interfere with the electoral process. The investigation began immediately after the 98 election while Connolly was an assistant USA. Connolly admitted he knew about the investigation when it began, even though it wasn’t his case. In July 2001 while Connolly’s nomination was pending, the FBI informed the USA’s office they were ready to precede with charges against Roberts. The delay was due to a cooperating witness backing out. The original Assistant USA on the Roberts’ case was authorized to indict Roberts in late July 2001 (the statute of limitations was October 2003). One week after Connolly became USA he had his first of many discussions with the Assistant USA’s on the Roberts case.
Connolly basically told the court his office didn’t bring the charges against Roberts until July 2002, because of 9/11. (The office prioritized national security issues) In early 2002 Connolly removed the Assistant USA who had worked on the Roberts case since the inception of the investigation in November 98, and was ready to file the indictment. Connolly claimed the transfer was necessary, because the original Assistant USA was now involved in Connolly’s firearms initiative, however the judge didn’t buy that, and pointed out the Roberts case was the only case transferred away. Connolly assigned Falgowski to the case, and the judge noted despite assigning a new Assistant USA to the Roberts case; Connolly became actively involved in the Roberts case, including conducting witness interviews.
The Judge made a point of highlighting some of Connolly’s actions that showed his personal interest in this case, including Connolly presence at the Grand Jury hearing as a spectator, (he wasn’t involved in the Grand Jury presentation), and Connolly personally interviewing Capano (and other witnesses) a year after Capano pled guilty in the case, and his offering Capano immunity (Did he need immunity, after he already pled guilty/ Double jeopardy?). Despite Connolly claiming he didn’t realize 2002 was an election year, or that Roberts was running for re-election, the court listed considerable evidence indicating if Connolly really didn’t know Roberts’ was running for re-election, he should have known. She didn’t flat out say Connolly was lying on this point, but strongly implied it.
In early July 2002 Falgowski told FBI agent Troy the indictment should be filed against Roberts before the primary filing deadline (July 25th). Troy told Falgowski the election should not be a consideration on when to bring the case against Roberts to the Grand Jury (which is consistent with the federal rules), and it should have been done long ago. On July 16, after talking with Troy, Falgowski told Connolly due to the Grand Jury schedule and his own vacation plans Roberts’ case should be taken to the Grand Jury in September, Connolly agreed. However, the next day Connolly changed his mind, claiming he just realized 2002 was an election year (Come on!) and it wouldn’t be right to indict Roberts after the primary, because “it would look like a very political partisan act…[which] was an untenable situation.” Connolly’s decision to indict Roberts prior to the primary filing deadline was made over a week before the deadline. Because the next regularly scheduled Grand Jury date was already full, a special Grand Jury session was needed. Instead of convening the special session immediately, Connolly convened the special session the day before the filing deadline. The Judge didn’t state this, but if Connolly wasn’t trying to play politics, and trying to interfere with the Democratic party’s ability to field a candidate who wasn’t under indictment, he would have convened the Grand Jury within a couple days of deciding to indict Roberts, instead of providing Democrats with literally hours to find a primary challenger to Roberts.
The Democrats were able to find a primary opponent, and get her on the ballot, apparently in record time. I don’t know how you get on the ballot in Delaware, but in Iowa you need a lot of signatures on a nomination petition, the number depends upon the race. Even if Delaware only requires paying a filing fee, to find a viable primary challenger in a day is pretty remarkable. The reason I believe Connolly tried to effect the race for Roberts seat, in favor of the GOP was because the Judge specifically stated in her ruling that only FBI agent Troy was telling the truth when he testified the indictment was timed with the election in mind. Connolly initial made false statements in the court pleadings, that he had to take back when he was under oath and presented with evidence showing his claim the election played no role in the timing of the indictment was unbelievable. Several times the judge directly said Connolly wasn’t credible, and at other times merely implied his story wasn’t credible, or he had to change his story, after confronted with the facts.
In addition to the judge’s statements regarding Connolly’s lack of credibility on the issue of whether the indictment was timed with the election in mind, the judge’s order included testimony from a co-worker of Jim Weldin. Weldin was the GOP nominee for Roberts’ seat. A week before the primary filing deadline Weldin told his co-worker that his campaign was going good, that Roberts would be indicted very soon leaving little time for the Democratic party to field a viable candidate. Not only did the judge’s order not indicate Connolly denied discussing his indictment timeline with GOP leaders, but if Connolly hadn’t told Weldin about his plans, I’m sure Connolly would have called Weldin to testify he never talked to Connolly about the timing of Roberts’ indictment.
So yes the Democratic Party was able to field a challenger in the primary despite having just a day to do so, but it’s clear after reading the judge’s order Connolly acted in a way to time an indictment to effect an election.
“I do believe if you didn’t so clearly despise the guy you would have greater objectivity regarding whether Connolly engaged in a political prosecution.”
This one always cracks me up. I don’t “despise the guy.” He’s actually an easy guy to get along with. I despise the way he operated. And sorry, I can’t just sign off on bad behavior regarding elections just because, in Gordon’s view, “everybody who held that office has done the same things.”
Wow, I want my lunch hour back! 😛
That’s actually in reference to having looked up a few things myself.
I see much of what you cover in the 11:58AM comment touched upon in this old article on Roberts requesting to dismiss the suit.
Then I came across this opinion on the motion to dismiss. I don’t know if this is where you base a lot of your info or not (honestly, I kind of lost track in the loooooong comments), but Judge Robinson, while figuratively backhanding the prosecution, did so while finding no legal wrong, thus dismissing the motion. In reading this, while Burns is no angel, I come away with the personal opinion that he kind of got screwed by Gordon-berry in that they may have willingly led him to believe he had immunity throughout in their attempt to close their own deals of wanton prosecution. By saying ‘wanton,’ I am not implying that prosecuting this isn’t itself bad, but within the desired focus and attitude given off by Gordon-berry may have been the ‘wanton’ part of it. Knowing this would easily cross into Federal jurisdiction, they should have not promised him full immunity until the Federal level was involved . This is part of what I think Geezer sees as what was their wild-west approach to administration.
From the end of the opinion:
So, to reiterate, I want my lunch hour back!
One of the Ron Williams points in the Gordonberry debate was one that I heard frequently from both sides of the aisle in many states during that period: “They’re trying to criminalize politics!” That was shorthand for, “But we’ve always done things this same sleazy way, and nobody complained before!”
Why I’m supposed to be on the side of the sleazeballs I can’t figure out, except for the notion that if the Bush DoJ did it, it was bad for everyone.
Cass- your determination is admirable, but no need to worry, no one takes any of Nancy’s conspiratorial rantings with anything but a grain of salt.
Remind us all of what Gordon was charged with and what he pled guilty to, Geezer.
Anybody who can’t see that it was a political persecution of a very popular Democrat (maybe the only one who could have beaten Castle at the time) is in denial.
Look it up yourself.
He had no interest in challenging Castle. He claimed repeatedly not to be interested in higher office, but in court documents Freebery claimed they had commissioned a poll to gauge his chances at governor.
A1 – I think he effectively plead guilty to being a bad boy (sarcasm intended), but I recall living through reports of subordinates making claims of things that should not have been, but many of whom wanted anonymity out of fear of retribution. That was common, not isolated. The only thing I am trying to recall is which half of Gordon-berry was the fear of retribution placed? One, the other, or both?
All that said, when I see an example of where they had zero business of guaranteeing immunity to someone like Burns, knowing full well this was a federal-level case and not local, it gives me some good perspective into their MO of getting things done. They got what they wanted, let the Feds deal with the mess that was created in the wake.
As far as the attacks on Gordon-berry, placing the prosecution aside for a moment, there were a fair share of R’s, D’s, and others that in unison wanted to see them be stood up to answer for things. That part of it wasn’t a partisan witchhunt.
Unrelated to this comment, but I forgot to put it in the earlier comment, when I saw Weldin’s name involved, I can’t say it surprised me. Let’s just say that I am no fan of the guy and leave it at that.
That’s part of the problem here, Smitty — a lot of this crossed typical partisan lines, and very few who supported Gordon did it because they thought he was cut out for higher office. Their MO was to assemble dirt on people and use it to coerce their cooperation. For example, after the aide came to Gordon with charges of sexual harassment against Roberts, Gordonberry didn’t go public with it — they used taxpayer dollars to secretly settle the suit and, not coincidentally, Chris Roberts switched from voting against them every time to supporting them every time.
I hear you, RSmitty, but with Rove being the experienced expert at political rumor spreading and Gordon being abut the most popular Democrat in Delaware at the time, it wouldn’t surprise me if the rumor spreading was all part of the campaign. Repubs always want to stab dems and dems always want to stab other dems. Repubs do it in the front; dems do it in the back.
Geezer, I didn’t say that he wanted to challenge Castle, only that he could have. Regardless, the repubs wanted him finished politically, and they used the DOJ to do it.
Iowa Democrat,
Are you seriously continuing the fiction that you aren’t from Delaware and don’t know the players? Give me a break!
Geezer you are not the first to call me persistent, and thanks for commending me. I don’t dismiss the concerns of people who know more about this than I do, although, I don’t think being their in real time provides someone greater knowledge, it often provides them with a lack of perspective. It is why as a general rule corrections in the newspaper to correct earlier misstatements, can’t undo the harm of an earlier false story.
Actually both personally and my attitude is far from “simplistic”. Actually people aren’t either guilty or not. I’ve also tried to make it clear the issue isn’t whether Gordon was a great guy, or Delaware’s Elliot Spitzer, the issue is did the USA bring legally valid claims against him? Given Connolly, and not the court, dismissed all indictment charges against Gordon (too many people who contemporaneously followed the case would bet their life the court dismissed the charges against Gordon) I don’t see how one can seriously argue Connolly’s case against Gordon was validly pursued. Even if some charges had been valid, Connolly’s inclusion of the salacious allegations, which Connolly admitted in court filings didn’t allege a crime, should never have been included in the indictment. His inclusion of the irrelevant, and inadmissible salacious allegations is pretty strong evidence Connolly wasn’t concerned with a legitimate criminal case, but wanted to destroy the guy. USA’s offices aren’t supposed to be used in that manner.
You state: ”The tapes would no longer be under seal if anyone asked for them. Rather odd isn’t it, that the state’s largest newspaper never has?” First you as a private citizen, or a citizen blogger have as much right to make a FOI request as a newspaper, and I have no clue what efforts the paper, or radio stations, or other news outlets have made to obtain the tapes. However, more importantly you’re flat out wrong on this issue. Secretly recorded tapes, obtained either with a warrant, or with a cooperating witness and no warrant, which have not been played into evidence during any pre-trial proceeding or at trial absolutely can NOT be publicly released. If they had been used (as in played, not merely Connolly claimed a tape would show this or that) in any pre-trial proceeding or at trial, those excerpts could be released if a FOI request was made, but release is dependent upon their prior public use. Please refer me to what federal code section, not any Delaware law that would only apply to state court actions, which would allow the USA’s office to allow anyone outside that office to have access to the tapes? You won’t be able to quote me a provision, because the federal law states just the opposite.
With respect to who made secret tapes or not, I don’t know or care. I must admit I didn’t care who Bill Clinton had sex with, and infidelity is only important to me if it is my spouse, or the spouse of a very close friend or relative. The reason I believed “Freebery’s [ex] fiancé” made some tape is an article I read in the News Journal from a Maschitti (sp), who reported on some court filings where Connolly claimed Gordon was taped by Freebery’s ex-fiancé. Regardless of who did the secret taping, at Connolly’s request, and with government supplied equipment isn’t important to me. I don’t care who has sex with whom, except with the caveat above, I lack the prurient curiosity regarding the validity of Connolly’s salacious sexual allegations. Seriously who cares if Gordon had sex with his cleaning lady?
Contrary to your claim that I see someone as guilty or not, I’ve repeatedly said I don’t care if the salacious allegations are true. My concern is with a USA including salacious allegations, which are neither illegal on their own under federal law (whether adultery in Delaware is still a crime, it isn’t under federal law) and aren’t relevant to any real federal criminal charge. Connolly’s inclusion of this clearly inappropriate crap not only violates federal law, it is wrong, and is strong circumstantial evidence of Connolly’s improper motives in the case.
You say people know who you are, I’m sorry I don’t, or if I do know you, or of you, I haven’t connected your pen name to your real name. If your real identity is well know I think you were very ill-advised to refer to Sharon Hughes (SH in the indictment, but later identified) as a “blackmailer”, as that is defamation per se, and opens you up to a lawsuit, unless she was lying about Chris Roberts sexual harassment. I admit I don’t know Hughes at all, or Roberts personally, but I assume the sexual harassment allegation she made concerning Roberts was factually based, Connolly never implied it wasn’t. Claiming her settlement with the county for $260,000 was blackmail, is not supported by any evidence, and was never even alleged by Connolly, and he alleged a lot. You may believe civil litigation is a legalized form of blackmail, or a pre-suit attempt to settle a case is legalized blackmail, but it is not. It is only blackmail if the events (Roberts’ sexual harassment) never happened, and Hughes (actually her attorney) tried to get a settlement for an event that never happened by threatening to expose other acts.
I am not saying as you claim, because I am certain the Bush DOJ was politicized (I doubt W was pulling the strings, or even aware of it) that nothing else matters. I do know believe every local Democratic office holder nation wide was subject to a political prosecution, but I do believe the evidence that has come out beginning in early 2007 is strong that there was in fact a pattern to target locals non-federal, and non-statewide officeholder for political prosecution, usually through the abuse of “honest services” violations, which is one reason I originally didn’t suspect the action against Matt McCoy was political, because no “honest services” violation was alleged, but rather a straight up extortion charge arising out of his personal business relations. What you fail to understand is I believe our constitution is what makes our country great; I don’t believe we are born superior. I don’t care if someone is a Republican, Democrat, or a guy who “stole” the USA’s college girl friend away; a USA swears to uphold the constitution. Using the office of USA to file bogus criminal charges against elected officials from the opposing party, or against the guy who stole your gal, is unconstitutional and immoral. If Gordon committed real federal crimes Connolly was duty bound to pursue criminal charges, however Connolly, not a senile Philly judge dismissed every indictment charge against Gordon. Connolly included salacious allegations against Gordon in the lawsuit that had no place in a federal criminal case. Whether the crap is true, partly true, or 100% false, is irrelevant, a USA is not allowed under the law to act in this manner. Unfortunately too many people have the opinion that it is ok to use our justice system to even political scores, it is not it is unconstitutional.
Again I don’t care “what really went on” while Gordon was in office. If Gordon’s tyrannical actions while in office didn’t violate federal law Connolly violated Gordon’s constitutional rights by bringing federal criminal charges against him. If valid federal charges were brought Connolly would have gone to trial. The fact Connolly admitted to the trial judge he was desperate (not a direct quote) to get out of the Gordon case, never appealed the two dismissed schemes that included the salacious allegations, despite multiple threats to do so, leads me to conclude Connolly never had a valid federal criminal case against Gordon, and it was only when it was clear to Connolly that unlike most federal defendants Gordon would not pled to a single indictment count, Connolly folded his tent, and dismissed the entire indictment against Gordon without a single guilty plea to any indictment charge.
Whether “they” ran the county like a couple of thugs isn’t a concern of mine, and I have no opinion on that issue. Unless their actions violated federal law, the USA had no legal authority to seek the indictment, even if he had left out the salacious crap. However you state they “particularly spent public money as if it were their own.” According to Connolly’s own filings he specifically stated Gordon never derived any personally benefited from Connolly’s claimed misuse of county funds. County employees didn’t go mow his yard, or put up his Christmas tree, those were allegations against Freebery, and in severing the two cases in 2006 Connolly stated Gordon wasn’t involved in any of this, and didn’t receive any personal benefit. Connolly never claimed in any court documents that Gordon personally used, or personally benefited from any public funds. Connolly did falsely state to reporters after Gordon’s plea hearing that Gordon’s approval of work by political appointees on two primary campaigns in 2002 cost the taxpayer over 60,000 (the exact number escapes me) However the judge’s sentencing order, specifically quoted the federal pre-sentence investigation, which specifically found zero tax dollars were incurred by the campaign activities. The PSI is required for sentencing, and conducted by the government. The order, and the federal PSI report specifically stated all NCC employees who worked on the campaigns changed their time records to have the campaign time credited as their personal vacation time.
Geezer I understand you couldn’t care less whether Gordon et al were convicted… The problem is regardless of ones personal animus, which you have admitted you have much towards Gordon (whether Gordon deserves it or not isn’t important to me) it is never ok for a USA to bring a baseless criminal charges (i.e. alleges no actual federal crime) against anyone, no matter how odious the subject of the politically motivated prosecution.
Nobody ever wrote anything about Freebery’s ex-fiancee. Ex-lover, yes. Ex-fiancee, no.
Again, you’re monomaniacal. I know exactly what I wrote when I wrote “blackmail,” and if you had read as much about this case as you are pretending to have you would know it, too. The attorney in question was Dick Wier, a former AG of Delaware, and the question was why he wasn’t hauled up on blackmail charges. To recap, his client was offered a $16,000 settlement; Wier told them if the offer wasn’t raised he would release a tape with a sex scandal (the Gordon-Freebery-Shawn Tucker shenanigans) that would “blow the lid off the county”; and the offer was raised to $268,000. Sorry you don’t consider that a misuse of taxpayer funds.
They also spent more than $35,000 in county money on lawyers to sue the News Journal BEFORE IT EVER WROTE A WORD for daring to investigate the Fieldstone-related charges. They used county workers, on county time, to staff the phone bank referred to in the indictment. Sorry you don’t consider them misuses of taxpayer funds.
As for you not caring about the sexcapades of public officials, what would you say if those sexcapades led to a jealous fight in which one public official used her public vehicle to ram and damage another public vehicle? Their sex lives led to out-of-the-bedroom consequences.
You don’t care about any of that? Then fuck you. The more you go on, the more I start assuming you’re another Sherry Freebery asslicker.
In short, you don’t care about any of this except your obsession because you didn’t live here. Got it. You don’t care about anything but your obsession. Showing, as if it needs more illustration, that one can be oh so polite yet still be a raging asshole. Thanks for the lesson.
Oh, by the way, in order to win a defamation lawsuit these folks would have to submit to me in discovery an awful lot of stuff nobody wants to see made public — for instance, those tapes.
Bringing up this scare charge, BTW, is what has me suspecting you’re a Freebery plant. That was her favorite form of intimidation.
Are you a lawyer? If not, why do you prefer legal niceties to the truth about things?
“Regardless, the repubs wanted him finished politically, and they used the DOJ to do it.”
Please produce your evidence that “the Repubs wanted him finished politically.” Other than the notion that, because a Republican USA was involved, it had to be politcally motivated. To run for governor — the only higher office Gordon appears to have been interested in — he would have had to jump ahead of both Carney and Markell in what looked like the queue at that point. The county is so Democratic the Repubs didn’t even bother to run a candidate against Gordon in 2000 election. In short, your (and Iowa’s) “motive” seems pretty flimsy to those who aren’t into conspiracy theories.
Besides, you don’t seem to realize who Gordon was tied in with — a list of bedfellows from both Delaware parties, going all the way up to Joe Biden and including federal judge Joe Farnan. When Freebery tried to drag Farnan into it, the entire establishment, Democrat and Republican, closed ranks to protect him, which is how the trial got moved to Philly in the first place.
County employees will still talk of the Gestapo-like atmosphere that existed during their reign and the countless acts of ruling with an iron fist such as firing handicapped employees(who later sued and won) and too many other tales to tell here. Thankfully they are no longer relevant, so why ID feels the need to spend pages of time on this is beyond me.
Anonone the indictment is the most bizarre federal criminal indictment I’ve ever read, and I’ve read plenty. It’s 45 pages long. It’s divided into five schemes. Fieldstone, Personal Benefits Scheme, Private Investigation Scheme, Sexual Harassment Scheme and the Election Scheme. Within the 5 schemes Connolly alleges RICO, wire fraud, and honest services violations. As I understand it Gordon admitted within days of news of the investigation broke (in the fall of 2002) that he did approve political appointees working on two primary campaigns. I personally think that was wrong, but apparently Delaware had a loophole, regarding political appointees versus civil servants. In any event Gordon admitted he Okayed the activity, and if it was a federal violation, his quotes from his newspaper interview would have convicted him.
In July 2005 the Philly Judge, who the 3rd circuit picked to oversee the case, dismissed three schemes and the criminal charges against Gordon and Freebery within those three schemes. The three dismissed schemes were Fieldstone, Private Investigation Scheme, and the Sexual Harassment Scheme. Gordon et al sought all charges dismissed. I agree that the Fieldstone case against Freebery shouldn’t have been dismissed at that stage, maybe at trial, or after discovery. The Fieldstone case against Gordon was real weak, and the 3rd circuit, which had no problem reinstating that scheme against Freebery, said it was a real close call as to whether the allegations against Gordon were strong enough to survive a motion to dismiss, but found it does met the requirements. However, when Connolly moved to separate Gordon’s and Freebery’s trials (which Gordon had tried to do a year earlier) Connolly dropped the Fieldstone scheme against Gordon and indicated that Gordon wasn’t really involved in that scheme.
The Sexual Harassment Scheme involved all the salacious allegations of sex that made the papers, it did not claim that Hughes blackmailed Gordon, or her claim against Roberts wasn’t strong. The Philly judge lambasted Connolly for including any of that crap in a federal indictment, and spared nothing in his condemnation of Connolly. The Private Investigation Scheme involved Freebery having surveillance of two NCC employee’s she believed were having an affair on county time, and on county property. The judge said Connolly’s allegations there fail to allege any illegal conduct. Connolly never appealed either the Sexual Harassment Scheme or Private Investigation Scheme’s dismissal to the 3rd circuit. However he did his best to keep the sexual allegations in the news by filing frivolous motions with the trial court threatening to appeal, but despite filing two lengthy appeals to the 3rd circuit he never included these two schemes.
The District court said the allegations in the Election Scheme, and Personal Benefits Scheme alleges sufficient allegations, and refused to dismiss them, This means the allegations Connolly made, alleged an actual crime, the court didn’t look at the actual evidence to support the allegations, just the claims on paper. The court did indicate that even though Connolly specifically failed to allege Gordon received any personal benefits under the Personal Benefits Scheme, and Connolly only alleged that Freebery did, and that some how, Gordon benefits by Freebery being happy (?), the allegations against Gordon while weak, were sufficient to escape being dismissed at that stage.
Before Freebery’s case was to go to trial the judge said evidence of what a witch Freebery was to employee’s wouldn’t come into evidence, because it didn’t matter why an employee helped with Christmas decorations, et cetera, because they weren’t being charged with doing anything wrong, the only issue was did she instruct employee’s to do these things, not why they did it. This is a really reasonable order, but obviously Connolly wanted to expose Freebery as a monster, not just someone who used NCC employee’s as her own personal servants. Connolly claimed that the judge’s order prevented him from proving his case. Which is BS, because why the employee agreed to mow her lawn isn’t an element of the crime. The court’s order merely required Connolly to convict Freebery on admissible evidence, not to poison the jury so they’d convict out of hatred. This ruling had no effect on the case against Gordon, but after Connolly got Freebery to pled to the bank loan charge, he wanted the Gordon case to go away.
Iowa: You get no argument here about the shakiness of the case as a criminal complaint. Indeed, the reason Connolly apparently dropped it was that once the RICO angle was tossed (again, because it was shaky) very little of this hung together. Unless you could present the terror tactics they used to keep people in line, lots of this stuff looks petty and inconsequentail. Hence the charge that “they’re trying to criminalize political activity.” And by the way, there is no Delaware loophole. You’re getting your information from Gordon-friendly sources.
Just so we have your “progressive” bona fides clear: You don’t care how public officials behave in office or how they spend public money, you just want to make sure US Attorneys don’t go after them without ironclad cases.
Got it. You’ll fit right in with Delaware politics.
ID – Pause button here. You did something in your comment that stands out to me and I’m starting to wonder of your impartiality now, although I admit this is fascinating to read and relive, kind of like a reoccurring nightmare.
In your 2:26PM comment, you put in a common misspelling that many adversaries of that reporter, now AM Talk Host, Al Mascitti, do intentionally when trying to dispagage him, whether in writing or spoken. It’s also known to many who followed this over the years that he hit hard (and accurately in many views) against the defendants in these cases. In research I did today, his name came up a few times in the hits with the correct spelling. Yet, the spelling you did, when pronounced the way you spelled it, changes it into a pronunciation that includes, well, shall we say a word that equates to defecation. It’s kind of common when people speak poorly of him, so even though it could be coincidence, it’s notable.
Before his indictment, Gordon had talked openly about primarying Minner for Gov. Republicans were thrilled at the prospect of an ugly Democrat battle. If the GOP had planned a “hit” on Gordon, they would have waited till after the primary race.
“Before his indictment, Gordon had talked openly about primarying Minner for Gov.”
Not when reporters were around. He repeatedly asserted he had no interest in higher office, to the point where people didn’t even bother to write it anymore.
anon: This still matters because Gordon is still trying to re-enter Delaware politics. Discrediting all who opposed him remains an important part of that effort, and his supporters remain loyal to him. At least one of them, obviously, has grabbed this Iowa transplant’s ear.
BTW, I’m sorry to have ignored “True Center” and his attack on me. I truly have no preference in this race, and further I know and like Chip but don’t know Velda. If your attack was supposed to be helpful to him, rest assured it had the opposite effect.
“According to his website, he has started his own firm representing Harvard, Dupont, Bank of America, Barclays, etc. He worked at the White House and Capital Hill and the world’s top law firm, Skadden Arps. I counted about 15 civic organizations on his website.”
And yet I asked for accomplishments. You listed none. Frankly, his platform consists of a naked power grab, none of which can be accomplished without changes to the job by the General Assembly.
he may have been coye around reports, but the leadership of both parties knew he had heart set on the Gov’s mansion and didn’t plan to wait his turn.
Gordon doesn’t have a prayer to re-enter Delaware politics. Rove and Connolly got their mission accomplished.
Schwartz: If that’s the case, Democrats had more reason to want him gone than Republicans. I don’t believe that’s the case, but it’s worth noting that Gordon was tied in the with Biden crowd, which has little use for the Carper crowd.
A1: He has tried to tie in with several campaigns over the past two cycles.
Cass- your determination is admirable, but no need to worry, no one takes any of Nancy’s conspiratorial rantings with anything but a grain of salt.
*
Oh my – how conspiratorial of you!
Are you suuuuuuuuuuuure?
And if you are the same anon – did I ever once mention Sherry Freebery? No.
The fact remains that the UDC that was installed by the Gordonbery has largely been dismantled by Coonsie-Clark and co.
Since I’m no longer sure what this thread is about, I may be off topic, but just making a general observation that a) people are sometimes charged with crimes that they are not convicted of, and b) there are many reasons cases may not get to trial.
There seem to be a lot of inferences being made here that would need support.
When Freebery tried to drag Farnan into it
*
Geezer, isn’t it true that Farnan availed himself of 600K of her ‘happiness loan’ when they went into a commercial realty venture together in Sussex? As bad as all of this was, not much of the Mosely-Dean money story had anything to do with Gordon which Colm eventually admitted.
I can’t believe Farnan is still on the bench.
Read Dominick Dunne on Lisa Dean Moseley sometime. You might find yourself wondering how, or why, a former police chief/lawyer and a notoriously hard-drinking heiress became such close friends.
*
In the tradition of many if not most of the landed chateau people in NCC who like having cops living on their property, Freebery lived on her estate in the gatehouse (or equivalent) and their kid were probably pretty close in age. Mosely’s was notoriously a n’er do well drug-addled loser. Could there have been something akin to blackmail behind the interest free loan/gift?
Geezer whether it was Freebery’s ex-lover as opposed to ex-fiancée, or the mailman isn’t relevant. What is important is you have claimed the paper could get the tapes, and hasn’t tried. Implying the papers trying to protect Gordon (whose the conspiracy theorist?). The federal law on this issue is clear. I asked you to supply me with your federal authority that the tapes could be made public, and despite your propensity to make charges, and claim an abundance of insider knowledge, you couldn’t back your claim up, because under federal law the tapes aren’t subject to FOIA because they were never played during an in-camera hearing, or at a public hearing or trial.
With respect to your “blackmail” charge I am aware of the judges remark to Connolly at the hearing, he included the judges earlier comments in his August 2006 motion to reinstate the two dismissed schemes, and specifically said that clearly the judge’s earlier comment was a joke. Connolly made it clear Hughes’ attorney did not engage in blackmail, but rather hardball litigation tactics.”
In order for Hughes (and her attorney) to have engaged in extortion/blackmail, Hughes claim that Roberts sexually harassed had to be false, and Wier either knowingly or unwittingly would have had to use rumors, or knowledge of sexual misconduct of other to obtain a settlement for Hughes, that she wasn’t legally entitled. Not only did Connolly never claim Hughes claim against Roberts lacked any merit; he specifically stated the judge’s blackmail comment was an obvious joke.
The comment you made that I found carried legal risks was: “I really couldn’t care less whether paying off a blackmailer with $260,000-odd is a crime — I just know it’s wrong.”
You then respond further: “Oh, by the way, in order to win a defamation lawsuit these folks would have to submit to me in discovery an awful lot of stuff nobody wants to see made public — for instance, those tapes… Are you a lawyer? If not, why do you prefer legal niceties to the truth about things?”
First allegations never proven in court should not be accepted as the truth!
Your statement accused Hughes (and by implication Wier) of blackmail. That is actionable defamation that either Wier or Hughes could pursue. You seem to be under the assumption that a defamation suit would involve Gordon or Freebery, it wouldn’t, calling Hughes a blackmailer defames Hughes (and her attorney) alone. Unless you are claiming there is a tape of Hughes saying she was never subjected to sexual harassment by Roberts, and lied about it to get money from the county, the tapes would be irrelevant to her case even if the law allowed her access, which it does not.
Am I a lawyer? I’m not licensed in any state but Iowa. I practiced law for years in Iowa before juggling the kids and work became too hard. If I was back in Iowa I’d probably be getting back into practicing full time, or maybe I’d wait until my last child is in college, but I’m not in Iowa, and don’t feel like learning about Delaware or PA law in order to practice out here.
Geezer your recitation of the settlement chronology differs from Connolly’s claim to the court. Connolly claimed Wier and acting county attorney Episcopo met to discuss a pre-lawsuit settlement of Hughes sexual harassment claim against Roberts and NCC. Wier demanded the case settle for 300,000, which apparently Episcopo told Wier was the maximum recovery allowed under federal law. If Episcopo said this and Wier believed it, this doesn’t speak well of either of them. 300,000 is the maximum “non-economic damages” that a sexual harassment claimant can recover under federal law. However neither the prevailing party’s attorney fees, nor actual economic damages are subject to the cap. Often Defendants will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees in case where the award for the actual harassment is nominal. In any event, according to Connolly the initial demand from Wier was 300,000.The case was settled for 260,000, not 268,000 as you claim, at least according to the indictment, and Connolly’s other court filings. Also Connolly doesn’t claim that Wier mentioned a tape, but claimed he said if Hughes case was litigated it would blow the lid off a county sex scandal.
I have no clue regarding the strength of Hughes sexual harassment claim against Roberts, or NCC as her employer, and I doubt you do either. But from what I’ve read about other litigation against NCC, both before, during and after Gordon’s tenure the case was settled for far less than NCC would have paid in outside attorney fees, let alone anything they would ended up paying to Hughes and Wier. I can’t say paying a claim before suit for less than NCC would likely pay in attorney fees if suit is filed is a waste of tax dollars, it actually may have been a cost savings, I just don’t have the information necessary to make the judgment.
Geezer, instead of resorting to childish taunts, please answer this question. If Connolly actually had admissible evidence to support his claims under the Sexual Harassment Scheme, and those allegations supported an actual crime, as opposed to being merely embarrassing, why did Connolly not appeal the dismissed scheme in 2005, and why did Connolly not follow through on his threat to appeal the courts refusal to reinstate the scheme in 2006?
Again I admit I don’t care who sleeps with whom, as long as it isn’t with my spouse, etc. Whether Gordon was concerned that a sexual harassment suit against Hughes would publicly expose others to embarrassment, he shouldn’t have worried. Hughes publicly said in a news article that her entire sexual harassment claim involved Roberts, and only Roberts, so any claims about anyone else at NCC was not relevant in Hughes sexual harassment matter. Just as Lewinsky’s consensual relationship with Clinton wasn’t relevant in Paula Jones case, and Clinton’s lawyer should have instructed him not to answer the question, any consensual relationships between other adults employed by NCC wasn’t admissible or relevant in Hughes case involving Roberts. I know Connolly alleges Gordon was motivated at least in part to settle the Hughes claim, because he feared exposure of irrelevant consensual relationship, but Connolly had no direct evidence to support this allegation. Direct evidence would be actual statements from Gordon supporting fear of exposure. According to Connolly’s brief his evidence to support his theory was limited to Episcopo anticipated testimony that Gordon didn’t ask him what Wier meant by county sex scandal. That is not even close to proof of Gordon’s state of mind.
I don’t think Gordon should have fought the FOIA request on Fieldstone, but the judge said it wasn’t a crime, and Connolly never appealed that aspect. I think elected leader misuse tax dollars on a regular basis. The question isn’t whether the money fighting the FOIA request was well spent, it wasn’t. The question is was the action a crime, and according to the court it wasn’t and Connolly never appealed that aspect. You seem to have a hard time understanding the basic principal whether a particular action was ok, bad, or good is not important in the context of whether Connolly acted properly or in violation of Gordon’s constitutional rights by bringing federal criminal charges.
I’ve also said I thought the use of county workers, on county time, to staff the phone bank referred to in the indictment was wrong, even if the question of whether there was a loop-hole in Delaware law was never answered. The judge never dismissed that part of the case. And I agree with you Geezer just because apparently this was along standing practice in Delaware doesn’t make it right. I don’t think this should have occurred. I have another question, if the use of political appointee’s to work on political campaigns during work hours was illegal under Delaware law (we both agree it shouldn’t have happened regardless of any loophole) then why didn’t Connolly take this part of the case to trial against Gordon? If this was a criminal violation, given Gordon publicly admitted in late 2002 that he authorized Freebery’s use of NCC employees in this manner, a conviction (if the conduct was illegal at the time) would have been a slam-dunk.
Do I care what motivated someone to intentionally hit someone else’s car? No I don’t. Nor do I know that Connolly’s allegation’s here are true. His ones involving Gordon and Hughes were false. Like Judge Robinson I don’t have faith in Connolly’s credibility. However if a person intentionally hit a vehicle they did not own (a NCC owned vehicle or someone else’s personal car) they should be charged with a crime and forced to pay the property damage incurred, what provoked the conduct isn’t important.
I can assure you I don’t even know Sherry Freebery, and your jumping to the conclusion is odd. Most my analysis of the case has related to the charges against Gordon. Connolly didn’t make a vile claim that Freebery sexually assaulted Hughes after she came to her to complain about Roberts, however Connolly claimed Gordon made sexual passes at Hughes when she came to him to report Roberts’ conduct. That is a vile accusation, that Hughes told the paper was utterly false. And think about it how dumb, or sick would a person have to be to make a sexual pass at someone coming you to report being sexually harassed by her supervisor’s, even without Hughes denial it defies credibility that this happened, and yet Connolly alleged it in the indictment! I’ve said previously I didn’t think the judge should have dismissed the Fieldstone case against Freebery, and from newspaper article I’ve read about Freebery she seems like a completely unpleasant person. But go ahead think I’m Freebery’s pal.
I would not call my belief that Connolly and far too many other Bush USA’s engaged in political prosecutions an obsession but I’ve already said if I had the ability to take a year or two to conduct extensive in person research into many specific cases listed in Professor Shields & Cragan’s study, I’d do it in a minute.
RSmitty I couldn’t remember how Mascitti was spelled, it was not meant to disparage him. Instead of getting out my box of documents on the Gordon prosecution to look for one of his articles for the current spelling I tried to go from memory. I’m not the best speller. I misspelled salacious the other day and Geezer made sure that was highlighted. I put (sp) after the reporters name because I wasn’t sure I was spelling it right. I’d like to think I’m above intentionally misspelling names, especially since a pet peeve of mine was people misspelling my first name, it took real problems in life to get over caring if my first (or last) name is spelled correctly. I don’t normally listen to AM radio, (except NPR) because it’s too dominated by right-wingers, so I haven’t listed to Mascitti. What’s his show like?
I agree many of Mascitti’ articles were hard hitting, and it appeared that Connolly was feeding him information. The articles of O’Sullivan and others seemed a bit more balanced. I’ve tried to rely on actual court filings, and not newspaper articles, but sometimes a newspaper article gives information that isn’t available in the court documents. In any event I meant no disrespect to Mr. Mascitti, and I’ll do my best to remember it’s c not an h. This isn’t a good excuse, but Iowa doesn’t have a large Italian population, now if it was a Czech name I would have nailed it!
Brooke I agree people aren’t always convicted of charges brought against them. OJ would be the best example of someone acquitted, that most believe (count me as one) who believe he was guilty. And there are many reasons criminal cases don’t make it to trial. However in federal court the overwhelming number of federal criminal cases result in a guilty plea to one or more charges, or lesser included offenses of one of the criminal charges, and almost all others result in convictions on one or more of the charges.
Nation wide convictions in federal cases, either by plea, or by trial verdict is in the upper 90%. In state court criminal charges are often dismissed, or in plea deals the person pleads guilty to charges unrelated to the crime they were charges with. But in federal court it really is almost unheard of for a federal prosecutor to dismiss all the indictment charges for a plea to a misdemeanor completely unrelated to the indictment. Here Freebery pled guilty to one of the felonies she was charged with, and Janet Smith pled guilty to a lesser included offense of one of the charges she was indicted on, however Gordon did not plead guilty to a single indictment charge, or a single lesser included offense to any indictment charge.
According to a newspaper article Connolly had to convince the judge to accept the plea to the misdemeanor tax violation, because not only did everyone agree the record keeping tax charge wasn’t violated (the W-2’s were accurate), but the record keeping tax charge was unrelated to everything in the indictment. According to the newspaper Connolly told the court that he just wanted to get out of the case, and this allowed him to do so.
Given Connolly’s indictment allegations, his reputation for being tenacious, his desire to make the Gordon case just go away doesn’t support the position his case against Gordon was ever valid.
“Instead of getting out my box of documents on the Gordon prosecution…”
I’ll take you at your word here and assume this isn’t sarcasm. Really, ID, take a chill pill and get a fucking life. None of the asshats involved – Gordon, Freebery, Coons, Roberts, etc. – are worth the time and mental energy you’re expending arguing here.
P.Scwartz I don’t know about Gordon’s post County Executive ambitions, however he was indicted in late May 2004, had he intended to run against Minner in the primary, his campaign would have had to be up and running before May 2004. Also according to an e-mail from a GOP party leader in March 2004, Connolly had told him (the day before) that he was going to indict Gordon by Memorial Day, which he did, and he had to get the case under way by the summer in case Bush wasn’t re-elected the case would be in full swing (too late for a Democrat USA to stop) by the time Connolly left as USA under a Democratic president. Not only was there no evidence in 2004 that Gordon was going to run against Minner, Delaware’s September primary would have been too late for Connolly to wait to bring charges, at least according to what a GOP leader claims Connolly told him.
Is there a way to block certain commenters while reading the rest of the thread? I can’t take too much more of this ex-Iowan who claims to spend all his or her time reading old court cases and newspaper clippings. Good grief. Talk about a fake. Hi, Tom! Welcome to DL!
(Note to DL mods: That’s sarcasm, not outing. I don’t really think ID is Tom Gordon. It’s clearly Nancy Willing’s alternative self from the Planet Badonkadonk.)
anon – LOL. Honestly, I don’t think even Nancy is into defending on the level this has gone, especially on Roberts behalf. Trust me, Nancy is NOT going there.
My conspiracy: I think we’re seeing an insurance policy to keep Connolly away from the race.
Just to clarify certain issues… Iowa Democrat is not Nancy Willing, or Tom Gordon. Now carry on.
And to clarify further, I don’t know who ID is, but you can tell from IP address who he is not.
RSmitty sorry about your lunch! Better luck tomorrow. Judge Robinson found Connolly was NOT credible, that FBI agent Troy was the only credible government witness, yada, yada-covered already. But she did not dismiss the charges against Roberts based upon vindictive prosecution. To have the case dismissed for vindictive prosecution the court would have had to find the timing was vindictive towards Roberts, not that it was done to effect the Democratic party, they are different issues. It was pretty clear in the courts opinion Roberts would be indicted before the statute of limitations ran in October 2003, so timing the indictment to effect the election wasn’t vindictive towards Roberts, because he was going to be indicted either less than 24 hours before the filing deadline, or a few months later ion September. However the court specifically found contrary to Connolly’s initial claims (until she cross examined him!) “The record clearly demonstrates that the indictment was timed with the 2002 election in mind.”
The order really is damning against Connolly. When a federal judge says a USA isn’t credible, and the only credible government witness is the FBI agent (meaning Connolly and all his assistant USA’s who testified weren’t credible) that is more than just a figurative backhand to the prosecution. It’s one thing for a judge to say your case sucks (but using legal jargon to do so) or your arguments lack merit, or any of the other ways a judge slaps down an attorney, but when a judge openly challenges an attorney’s actual credibility, not there legal argument, but their actual honesty, especially when the attorney is a USA that is no small matter, in the words of the VP that’s a big F’ing deal!
Again I’m not commenting on the way Gordon et al ran things in NCC, whether he was a cowboy (not a compliment), inept, allowed Freebery to run rough shod, or a mix of good and bad, is not relevant to the issue of was there a valid federal criminal case against Gordon. I’ve yet to see anything to support an allegation of a crime, other than the election issue, which according to what I’ve read there, was a loophole for political appointees. If Gordon’s claim of a loophole was bogus Connolly should have gone to trial on the charge. However I don’t see how Gordon et al screwed Burns. According to the judge in the past the USA’s office always honored immunity agreements of the local authorities, so I think the NCC people had a right to expect it would happen here. But I do think they should have handed the case over immediately to the feds, or never handed it over, but I don’t think Sullivan, Gordon or Freebery intended to screw Burns over. And actually based upon the allegation I think it speaks well of Sullivan, Gordon and Freebery. Sullivan learned from a client that Roberts was requesting a 5,000 bribe to move a develop project forward, and he tells Gordon. Gordon and Roberts are both Democrats, and instead of ignoring the information against a fellow Democrat, Gordon tries to catch a guy who was taking bribes in the act. Whether the sting was a good idea, as Gordon was no longer Police Chief is another issue, but I guess I see Gordon’s trying to stop a politician who is alleged to be taking bribes as inconsistent with the stuff Geezer says about Gordon.
But again my concern is with Connolly’s abuse of the office of USA, not the merits of Gordon as a County Executive.
Anon I was born and raised in Iowa. With the exception of undergraduate and law school I lived in the same Iowa town/city my who life, until my husband recently got a great promotion, which took the family east. I’d tell you where I live and give you background information that would prove I’m not from here, and am relatively new to the area, but I not only don’t feel I need to prove my Iowa roots to you, but more importantly I don’t think it is wise to give out personal data on the internet.
I will chalk up your incorrect assumption that I’m from Delaware, and really know all the players as a compliment to my research skills on the Gordon case. But seriously if you think I know a lot about this political prosecution, would you like to discuss Biskupic’s prosecution of Georgia Thompson, or Matt Whitaker’s prosecution of Matt McCoy, or Mary Beth Buchanan’s prosecution of Cyril Wecht, or maybe you’d like to discuss the prosecution of Detroit attorney and past Democratic candidate Geoffrey Fieger.
Anon, it wasn’t sarcasm, and I have a nice life thank you very much. I also have a couple bankers’ boxes on the Congressional hearings on the USA scandal, and on other federal criminal cases. I’m serious when I saw I would love to take a year or two to do in depth research on a handful of USA cases, that appear to be political prosecutions, that isn’t currently possible, but I guess I keep what I research, instead of recycling the paper, because I haven’t completely given up researching several cases that haven’t made the national headlines. You may think that is a pathetic outlet, and you’re entitled. I admit if I was back in Iowa I’d probably spend a little less free time, on-line, researching cases that are on Professors Shields and Cragens list of local Democratic prosecutions. And maybe as my circle of friends grows, I’ll get out more. As far as whether Gordon et al are worth it, my interest is in seeing that this never happens again.
It’s clear a lot; maybe most of you don’t think it’s possible that Connolly could have engaged in a political prosecution. I see it the opposite, and frankly it concerns me that the Obama administration seems unwilling to look at past abuses in the Bush DOJ. I’m not talking war crimes, I’m talking about a rather wide spread practice of targeting local Democrats for investigations and political prosecution. Assuming Professors Shields and Cragens are right, and there appears to have been an actual concerted effort to engage in political prosecutions of local Democrats, and nothing is done about the past abuse. Not only are people who grossly abused their office unpunished (a few are now federal judges!), but what will stop the next GOP administration, there will be another one some time, from repeating the abuses. Call me paranoid, or laugh, but I’m sorry I really believe the biggest damage of the Bush administration was the politicization of the DOJ.
Yes, yes, yes, you only care about Connolly. OK, he was the worst US Attorney in history.
I suppose I am biased by knowing far too much about all this, though bias seems a rather odd word for direct knowledge of the facts. You, on the other hand, exhibit clear confirmation bias. You look for misconduct by US Attorneys and, unsurprisingly, you find it, exhibiting complete credulity toward the defendant’s explanations and total skepticism of the US Attorney’s.
I don’t think either of us is going to change the other’s mind.
To other readers, if any remain, I apologize for trying to convince ID of the value, if not validity, of Connolly’s investigation. I have no doubt she is a lawyer, and it seems a perfectly likely hobby for a Democratic lawyer to have, especially one new to the area.
Iowa, I sincerely hope you get around to researching and writing that book. You make a convincing argument — and you’re right, if I didn’t know anything about the case, after reading your summation I would think Gordon got screwed.
Let’s face it. It’s the citizens of Delaware, and particularly of NCC, who got screwed here.
Gordon crooked, Freeberry crooked, Connolly crooked… whatever your list, you and I paid all their expenses.
“And to clarify further, I don’t know who ID is, but you can tell from IP address who he is not.”
Wait … huh? … I’m confused. How does that work? I assume you know Nancy’s IP, because she comments here all the time, but how do you also knw Tom Gordon’s?
I agree with RSmitty that this seems more about wanting to keep Connolly firmly out of the running for a judgeship.
My conspriacy theory? That anon is a county employee typing away on county time.
While many puzzle why the Obama administration seems unwilling to look at past abuses, I’d kind of like to see many of these former USA from that previous administration pull together and go after that previous administration. It’s very easy to go after Connolly and others that were on his level, since they did the work in the public eye, but when you look across that landscape and see things like ID is saying, you’ve got to wonder the pressure that was on their head to perform. Yes, they could have stood up and say enough was enough. In this day and age, though, when you are countered with a potential life time blackball, which was the case if you didn’t go along, you’re screwed. Anyone that knew Connolly in public or private knew that the persistance of cramming this was from above. In hindsight, I think many of us wished he stood up to the asenine layers above him, but at the same time, he would have damned himself right out of his profession. The Bush Admin DoJ was extremely foul.
The one thing that whole saga gave us, though, at least, was a way to see how some things were accomplished in county government and it synched up with some of our darkest thoughts.
Nancy – I actually saw all this as an insurance to keep Connolly from running for AG, not seeking a judgeship.
As far as AG, I’d be surprised if he ran. I don’t know Connolly privately at all, but I know those who do and then there is some of the public personna. I just feel we would have seen something by now, although this doesn’t mean something isn’t in the works. I mean, if he did, there will always be an “Iowa Democrat” waiting to pounce. The pouncing should come on the Bush DoJ and those USA from there should join it. So, again, at this point, I’d be surprised.
Out of the running for AG, more likely. There are no judgeships open.
This will be my last post until June. Yes I hear the cheers. I’m going back to Iowa (sorry folks not permanently), for two graduations, and to see my oldest son, who is staying in Iowa City (where he attends college) for the summer. I’ll have computer access in Iowa, but will be too busy to go online.
Geezer, I don’t think Connolly’s the worst US Attorney in history, he’s not even among the10 worst Bush’s USA’s. (Admittedly faint praise) Call it Iowa naivety, or excessive idealism, but I believe with every fiber of my being that attorneys are officers of the court, the oath we take isn’t just a quaint exercise. I expect USA’s to understand and execute the constitution. I understand USA’s are human, and I’m not shocked when a USA brings a case (say tax fraud) against a politician from the other party, despite never prosecuting far worse offenders from his own party. That action is wrong, and is not mitigated by the fact that the person charged with tax evasion committed the crime. However the fact the person charged committed an actual federal crime makes it a lesser evil (but not acceptable or right), than charging anyone in federal court with a federal crime where there is no admissible evidence an actual federal crime was committed. It doesn’t matter if the “victim” of the criminal charge is Attila the Hun, unless the charges against Attila are actual federal crimes supported by admissible evidence a USA is duty bound to refrain from bringing the charges. And when it appears an inappropriate criminal indictment is due to the USA’s personal political agenda, or part of a larger concerted political effort, the conduct is an egregious attack on the very fabric of our nation, as undermines our political system. It is our justice system, or at least its ideal, that makes our country great!
I haven’t given defendant’s claims unqualified acceptance, nor rejected out of hand the USA’s claims. I would not have questioned Connolly filing the election charge against Gordon, and filing the Fieldstone, Personal loan, and if the allegations were true the personal benefits scheme against Freebery. But that isn’t what happened. Call what I have done here and elsewhere a forensic legal analysis, I have based my opinion from reading the court filings, and supplemented with contemporaneous news articles. Other than possibly being wrong about whether someone was an ex-fiancée or ex-lover, I have not misrepresented a single fact within the actual court records. I began my analysis here with a clean slate, and formed my opinions based upon the actual legal record. However Geezer you apparently base your unshakable opinion from what you call “knowing far too much about all this.” I don’t doubt you know every innuendo, back story, rumor (false and true) surrounding the case, and have an abundance of accurate inside information, however the issue is was there a valid federal crime case when Connolly filed the indictment, after a three year investigation, and not whether the people are unsympathetic jerks. Our constitution applies equally to saints and sinners, if it only protects those who don’t need protection, what value is it? Silly me I believe in Miranda rights for the Christmas Day underwear bomber. Ideals and constitutionally guaranteed rights can’t be tossed away, because of personal feelings about the person not availed those rights.
Geezer, I’ve asked you several times to explain why if Connolly actually had admissible evidence to support his claims under the Sexual Harassment Scheme, and those allegations supported an actual federal crime, as opposed to being merely embarrassing (political suicide) to Gordon, why didn’t Connolly appeal the dismissed scheme in 2005 along with his Fieldstone appeal, and why didn’t Connolly follow through on his threat to appeal the courts refusal to reinstate the scheme in 2006? I suspect you haven’t answered the question because Connolly’s failure to actually try to keep these two schemes in the case, if they were valid, is not only inconsistent with the normal response of almost all prosecutors, but it’s completely counter to Connolly’s normal dogged pursuit. (I’ve seen the MSNBC show about the Capano case) Connolly’s refusal to take this issue before the 3rd circuit is strong evidence supporting my belief Connolly always knew the allegations had no place in the indictment. Even if just this scheme alone had no legitimate legal basis to be included in Connolly’s indictment charges against Gordon, and all others were legitimate, Connolly’s inclusion of that scheme violated Gordon’s constitutional rights, and provides a strong basis for the DOJ to at least investigate the matter. However, I hear from the daughter of a friend, now working at the DOJ, that they have their hands pretty full cleaning up the mess left for them. (This is coming from the daughter of a Geo. HW Bush appointed federal judge!)
We both agree the campaign worker conduct was wrong (yippee agreement!). If is was a violation of Delaware law, which would then allow the federal honest services charge Gordon would have no defense. He couldn’t claim he wasn’t aware this happened, or blame it on Freebery. In the fall of 2002 Gordon unequivocally admitted knowledge and authorization of the campaign efforts. Unless the loophole in Delaware law existed, why didn’t Connolly prosecute this slam-dunk charge? If the loophole defense lacked merit with Gordon’s admission my daughter’s mock trial team back in middle school could get a conviction.
I hope I get to research the book, but I fear that won’t come until the youngest (15) is out if high school, which on certain days seems like an eternity. If I do get the chance I’ll need a hell of a good editor, as things I think are crystal clear, apparently aren’t. One post from last night accused me of defending Roberts, something I’ve never done. My purpose in painstakingly going through the Roberts matter was to show Connolly previously leaked his timeline to indict a Democrat to a GOP candidate, and according to the court Connolly was not credible and timed Roberts’ indictment with the 2002 election in mind. That’s criticism of Connolly not support of Roberts.
I have one question unrelated to Connolly; I was promised Delaware has “mild” winters compared to Iowa. Please tell me this year really was an aberration.
Yes, it was an abnormally snowy winter, though the temperatures were about normal.
I didn’t answer your question because I have no idea what the answer is. You would have to ask Connolly that one.
I understand your feelings, but you have failed to understand mine — without Connolly’s investigation, none of this questionable behavior (I’m assuming you’ll at least acknowledge that it was questionable) on Gordon’s and Freebery’s parts would have ever become public knowledge.
Your highest value is the legal code and Constitution; mine is the truth about what’s being done in the public’s name with the public’s money. I would have been perfectly happy had Connolly simply published the findings of his investigation without ever filing charges. But you and I both know that’s not how the game is played. Given our imperfect world, I would rather have both the investigation and a lousy prosecution than neither.
Ok I was wrong (my kid’s would call it a lie), packing went quicker than anticipated! I hope that means no delays at O’Hare (right!). I understand the instinct to be glad Connolly’s criminal action exposed “questionable behavior”. I don’t know how much of the questionable behavior alleged is true. Allegations aren’t facts until proven. Certain allegations, like the campaign work was admitted, and I think it was wrong regardless of any loophole, or past practice. But admittedly things that are apparently “normal politics” elsewhere would be scandalous in Iowa. This “walking around money”, or “political machine” that I hear about is a foreign concept, and seems unethical.
I do value the law and Constitution, and I think you do as well. The problem with wanting, or approving suspension of the Constitution, and perversion of our judicial system in order to expose “questionable behavior” is we can’t pick and choose when Constitutional rights should be protected, or limit the application to people we like or admire. Your suggestion of being happy with Connolly publishing his [unchallenged] investigation findings in lieu of criminal charges is actually worse than what occurred. It would allow a USA to create a stain of guilt, and put the burden of proving innocence on the subject of the investigation. As it was Connolly brought a 45-page indictment, after a 3-year investigation, and elected not to take the case to trial. This does not happen when the initial criminal charges were valid. Connolly was successfully able to convince the local media that he couldn’t take the case to trial because of Fullam, which is factually unsupported, but went unchallenged. The Fieldstone dismissal against Freebery was the only clearly questionable ruling
Sorry if anyone here works in traditional media, but I don’t know why Connolly’s failure to appeal two schemes he claimed gutted his case was not vigorously questioned by the newspaper. If Connolly had not filed two 3rd circuit appeals he could use the excuse that appealing the two dismissed schemes would cause a trial delay, or add unnecessary litigation expense, but given he twice elected not to include the two dismissed schemes in either 3rd circuit appeals, his blaming Fullam is disingenuous, and should have been challenged.
I do understand the instinct to not be concerned with how information was made public, but in doing so you ignore the fact allegations the USA himself elected not to prove, are nonetheless accepted as gospel, and no side benefit (assuming exposure of alleged conduct was a benefit and not a grave injustice) is worth condoning a USA’s abusing the office of USA. If none of the allegations would have been exposed but for Connolly’s prosecution, then that is an indictment of the traditional media whose duty it is to investigate and expose public wrong doing without regard to whether the conduct violates state or federal law (assuming the unproven allegations were even true). It is not a justification to close our eye to bastardization of our constitution and judicial system.
As noted many times before, I know how true the allegations were, and you don’t — nor, I suspect, do you care.I know how many other instances of misbehavior weren’t even investigated, and again, I suspect you don’t care. Many things can be true without having been proved in court. So save the lecture. I can be just as ideological as the next person — and then a real-life situation comes along that illustrates how worthless all those lectures and principles are.
So you’re just a swell person, and I”m not. And I still don’t care. The man was a menace, Connolly was the only one positioned to put a stop to it, and he did. I really don’t give a crap whether I measure up to your idea of wonderfulness or not. Frankly, I don’t much care for your idea of wonderfulness, either. It sounds like a wonderful recipe for government corruption, and your defense of Gordon is all that needs to be cited.
Something else you don’t seem to realize: The “traditional media” as you call it consists of the one newspaper and that’s it. It tried to investigate government wrongdoing — Gordon’s — was threatened with a prior restraint lawsuit and backed down. Connolly was literally the only way Delawareans were going to find out what was going on. Again, your ivory tower musings make wonderful legal reading — and they bear no relationship to what went on here in the real world, where Gordonberry’s threats (and success at muzzling enemies through threats to reveal various secrets, as with Farnan) kept most of the truth from ever reaching the court.
Beyond that, nobody owes you any more explanations. YOu are, at base, an ideologue — and given your support for corruption that doesn’t take the form of clear law-breaking, a menace yourself.
A total aberration. My kids had never seen such snow. 🙂
Have a great trip and lovely graduation, ID.
Nancy – I actually saw all this as an insurance to keep Connolly from running for AG, not seeking a judgeship.
*
yeah, I didn’t think about AG but I have seen his name linked to the possibility. His name was on track for a judgeship and Biden refused to give the nod. Isn’t a former AG now in line and waiting for that position? Charlie Oberley (sp?).
FWIW Colm was depicted in the made-for-teevee Capano movie that is compelling to any Delawarean. And there are a few of the actors that now have popular shows. (I am weirdly fond of the NCIS and Cold Case characters.)
yeah, I didn’t think about AG but I have seen his name linked to the possibility. His name was on track for a judgeship and Biden refused to give the nod. Isn’t a former AG now in line and waiting for that position? Charlie Oberley (sp?).
Answers: Agreed/yup (or so I have also heard)/don’t know (drop the ‘y’ and I think you have the spelling).
Oberly/Oberle:
Charlie Oberly is the former AG/1994 Democratic U.S. Senate sacrificial lamb, losing to Roth with 42 percent.
Bill Oberle is the GOP state legislator who’s been in Dover since the ’70s.
==========
Yes, Nancy, you got me. I’m posting from county computers on county time at the express direction of the county conspirators who are ruining your county.* We get it. You hate Coons and Clark. Move on.
* Mods: This is sarcasm.
— U.S. Senate passes a sweeping Wall Street reform bill, which now must be reconciled with House version.
Suck it teabaggers
Oberly/Oberle
Oberly/Oberle, whatever it takes.
(Thank You “Mr Mom” for the reference: 210/220, whatever it takes.)
awe, nony nony, you must have known I was funnin’ wid ya.
Hey annon, You know so much about the County, why did Nello have to leave the County?…Oh i’m sorry you already know!