“At no time did Speaker DeLeo communicate with Sal DiMasi, James Holzman, Richard Vitale, Reps. Rodrigues or Petrolati on the ticket broker bill,” says Seth Gitell, spokesman for Speaker DeLeo.
Only a few months into office, and DeLeo’s Gitell is scrambling to keep his boss from following in the footsteps of his three immediate predessors, all of whom were indicted.
Today’s Globe has the story. Looks like prosecutors in the DiMasi case believe Rep. Tommy Petrolati was deeply involved in an illegal scheme to dodge the state’s lobbying rules and help a deep-pockets donor.
My belief is that the Speaker is clean. But what will he do with this mess? Meanwhile, will Petro be indicted? Will DiMasi turn on his former lieutenant to reduce his own legal exposure? Will the people of Ludlow ever tire of Petro? Will the Speaker drop Petro from his high leadership post? Or is he a legislative champion who is just misunderstood? BMGers: what say you?
Discuss
13 Comments . Comments are closed.Beware of categorical denials.
"At no time did the Speaker communicate..." raises red flags, just because there are too many variables. I'm not accusing the Speaker of anything here; he may genuinely believe he is clean or even really be clean. However, if you take "at NO time" too literally, one of his colleagues mentioned may say they actually do remember brief words exchanged in such a fleeting moment that the Speaker simply doesn't remember the exchange. I myself would be very careful about making such absolute statements, especially if under oath, lest I get contradicted by someone who has a better memory of the incident than I. Also, why SHOULDN'T the Speaker communicate with colleagues about a particular bill?
It doesn't sound like you read the piece
From the piece:
Sadly, the piece does not cite links to the original statements of Mr. Petrolati and Mr. Rodrigues. I'll post them when I get a chance to look myself.
Again, from the piece:
We are not talking about "fleeting moments", we are talking about judge citing daily conversations with an unlicensed lobbyist in a criminal case.
I've read it now.
I didn't see anything about accepting bribes, so I'm not going to fault the politicians. Maybe the lobbyist should be charged with failing to register and of course campaign contributions should be disclosed. What I DON'T want to do is criminalize having conversations. I'm sure you remember what I thought about the email "scandal" at Boston City Hall and this sounds vert familiar.
I think you should learn more about the case
Perhaps I should put together a post that ties together the timeline, the players, and the topic.
The legislation in question pertains to ticket scalping, particularly for Fenway Park. Momentum was building (and perhaps still is, I don't know, I don't follow it) to decriminalize ticket scalping. The legislation in question purported to advance that aim -- and in fact, served to increase the profit margins of certain organized ticket-scalpers and make it more, rather than less, difficult for regular folks who want to buy or sell a few extra seats for a game.
Was there outright bribery discussed in this piece? No, I didn't see any either. If you investigate the issue, you'll find however that the entire point of the legislation was to benefit the specific agencies paying the illegal lobbyists in question. Fortunately, it got nowhere in the Senate.
Learn about the players, learn about the roles of the legislators involved, and then ask again whether the behavior they demonstrated is consistent with the values we promote here.
That's a different question.
It's fine to debate the merits of and values behind the legislation. I actually do not have a fully formed opinion on that at this point. By all means point out the connections and shine light on who benefits and why. I'd rather focus on the substance of the legislation than who said what to whom and when.
Interesting fellow...
...Rep. Petrolati was ALSO chair of the Redistricting Committee that was the end of Finneran. And I THINK DeLeo has named him to reprise his role!
Talk about your Kiss of Death - Have Petro's Help and Support!
I am curious
You state
Based upon what criteria?
You ask
Vote NO on casinos.
You ponder
For being a slippery politician - one could hope.
You query
Why not, unless TP has more goods on him? Petro would flip Sal in a heartbeat.
You demure
No. Ya gotta see it to believe it.
You seek
If he has any sense and is clean as you suggest above.
You jest
BWWAAAAAAH!
Could---could---could half the legislature be indicted? Say it ain't so.
Would anyone be surprised with that ceptic tank on Beacon Hill? Another house speaker on the way to the slammer? Who will the spotlight illuminate next? There must be one Republican who is a thief. We must be inclusive and celebrate diversity, The US attorney can't just indict every democrat in the state. What would that say about democrats? That they are segregationists? Or just morally bankrupt thieves.
It's septic tank
city boy. Unless you meant (ex)ceptic tank, in which case, when it comes to corruption, the Dems are no exception. Piss and moan all you like, but until you guys rub a couple of neurons together and come up with an idea that someone doesn't laugh at and will vote for, you'll be left with your snarks.
I don't know how anyone looking at the information so far can believe that DiMasi's innocent. I mean yeah, he's innocent in a court of law so far, but I'm not a court of law, and even if he led on a couple of issues I cared about, I won't be a patsy for the guy. He stinks. As Heartland Dem asks, on what evidence does one believe DiMasi's innocent? Wishful thinking doesn't count for much.
Peter Porcupine wonders when the people of Ludlow will tire of Tommy Petrolati. The answer is not soon. Ludlow loves their own. It will take serious consequences and a very brave challenger to take him on in his home town. There's nothing happening on those fronts.
Saturday Globe
What's with the Globe putting juicy stories in its Saturday edition? First, they print a story about the state cranking 60-some-odd million dollars into a floundering company called Evergreen - then they publish a story about a potentially widening corruption probe on Beacon Hill.
I commend them for great reporting, but the stories seem to be Sunday Globe calibur to me. Whatever.
You are kidding right
the Saturday paper has traditionally been the "bury the story" edition (which is also the reason that it is probably the most important edition to read). Why do you think that Friday afternoon press conferences invariably are the most problematic?
Evergreen story...
...was not a Friday afternoon news dump by the administration. It was a well-researched and reported story about state government throwing good money after bad at a flimsy green company. The Globe could've chosen to run it any day of the week - but they chose a Saturday.
And I think you proved my point
reread what you just said, and figure out what the Globe did with the story.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 23 May 11:08 AM