So Many Questions?
I can see a superior court judge or an appeals court dismissing the case against Cahill based on the law he allegedly violated being too vague. This is the first time this law is being tested and the problems applying it are apparent to lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
Is it really such a big deal if Cahill’s campaign advised him on the political angle regarding the ads? Thats what campaign advisors do. And yes my friends, they put it in e-mails.
State reps and senators are constantly being told by advisors to associate themselves with certain issues because the voters believe it to be the correct one. Not what the facts present regarding the issue but what the voters naively believe. The legislator then files a shitty piece of legislation usually with a co-sponsors who know next to nothing about the bill or its ramifications. This is done using tax payer funded employees, phones etc.
If the legislature admits to why he is filing the bill should it be a crime?
Then of course there is Bill Galvin’s well timed ads from the Secretary of State’s office every four years. We all know what he’s doing.
If he admits to exactly why he’s doing it should it be a crime?
Then there’s the governor’s office. Holy moly. Martha and her toadies would have some sick prosecutorial orgy if they ever got an inside look at how a governor’s office is run.
Same for the A.G.’s office.
Hey, wait a minute.
The staute is too vague and should fail when tested. IMHO
BTW, it’s not about liking or not liking Tim Cahill, or did he help Deval out, or why is Martha doing this. It is about the law. This is a country of laws, not people. Please try to keep that in mind.
——————
What Ernie posted was common knowledge on Beacon Hill, and among a lot of people who follow politics in their capacity as citizens. Here things get interesting, because the latter – in the case of Boston – tend to come from neighborhoods where political participation is integral to the civic culture, and “inside ball” is common public discourse.
The audience for, and knowledge base of, inside ball is far larger than a lot of folks think.
Those are comments of our esteem blogger Paul Simmons. And it is spot on.
Trust me when I tell you this amigos, 99% of what I write on here is known by hundreds if not thousands by the time it reaches BMG. Beacon Hill is just another high school, work place, sewing circle, locker room, barber shop, assembly line, or old time neighborhood. People have nothing better to do than talk about other people.
So when I blog that Martha Coakley is a self-obsessed, cold-hearted, evil person what I am saying is that a majority of the people that have dealt with her on professional level and been in positions to watch her career think the same.
Same for when I blog that Sal going jail for taking money did not take too many people by surprise. Or when I write that Chuck Turner is an honest intelligent man that got royally screwed by the feds and his own personality but Dianne Wilkerson was corrupt.
Or when I blog that Judge Mulligan is a no good son-of-a-bitch and he and the SJC were in cahoots with the Globe who had a wink wink nod nod relationship with the feds thus ending in Carmen Ortiz being named the Globe’s Person of the Year
Everyone knows this shit. I’m nothing special. That’s the fucking point of my blogs. Wake up and quit being told what to believe.
—
Okay, a little Irish/Italian American culture lesson here. There is (or at least there was) nothing wrong with being an altar boy. However, being called one deserved a punch in the nose.
That meant you were a goodie two shoes who just wanted the teachers, parents, and old ladies to like you. The kind of kid that would rat out other kids to the teacher. The kind that would run away when his friends got in a fight.
The kind of kid that grew up to be the guy that would walk in to mass ten seconds before it started and parade to the front pew so everyone could see him.
Occasionally the kid tries to be smart and clever but falls flat. Behind his wussiness is a deep desire to belong.
With that in mind I must ask Steve Grossman if he ever wore the ole cassock and surplus at the local parish? I mean really dude, the more we see the less there is.
Karen Polito showed you up. Wait, that’s not right, you showed yourself up. Thought you were cute, smart and witty. Nope, just not-ready and never-will-be-ready-for-prime-time. Being the the connection to rich guys for the Democrats a few years ago means shit Steve.
Your need to ingratiate yourself with the public and have them think you are the smartest, nicest, and most ethical guy in the state is pathetic.
Your campaign ad telling us how your company kept some poor slob on the payroll during his bout with cancer. Man you are out of touch.
I bring this up because Grossman made sure to get a press release out yesterday kicking the crap out Cahill and telling voters that he doesn’t have his picture around the office.
What a dickweed.
—–
Unlike the Cahill case the O’Brien Gang should go to trial. (Unless of course the defendants can’t afford to defend themselves and have to plea so as not to bankrupt their families. Happens all the time.)
A main witness for the government should be Judge Mulligan. I can’t wait for the cross examination. His contact with the Globe Spotlite people prior to the stories. The history of his relationship with O’Brien. So much to go over. And if the government doesn’t call him the defense will. Can you say “hostile witness” Judge?
In fact I would expect some federal subpoenas from defense counsels issued to Globe reporters for notes etc. related to the conversations with Mulligan and perhaps other. Evidence of bias by Mulligan and SJC to run a smear campaign against O’Brien to cause him to be fired or resign and therefore make probation department part of court’s portfolio of job hand outs. That was Mulligan and the SJC’s criminal enterprise.
Not to mention Mulligan’s relationship with Judge Botsford and the statements he made to Commonwealth Magazine about not trading a job for her nephew for her deciding vote to re-appoint him.
BTW, once again this is not about the O’Brien Gang or Carmen Ortiz, it’s about us being a country of laws aiming for justice and not emotional reward.
——
Who is out to get Terry Murray? Really. Talk about cheap shots. Commonwealth Magazine headlines it’s web site with an innuendo that Terry is caught up in the Probation scandal big time.
What?
Not so.
The Herald did the same.
Lousy journalism.
I do notice that Paul McMorrow, the author of the Murray story and an editor for the magazine writes an occasional opinion piece for Globe.
And Commonwealth Mag. has a little pissing contest going with the Globe over “who saw it first”. So I guess Commonwealth Magazine wants to take credit for these phony baloney indictments and see if they can cause more over-the-top hysterical federal indictment reactions to non-corrupt political wheeling and dealing. At most there are ethical violations.
Isn’t that a story? No? Ethical violations don’t sell papers or get web site hits?
There use to be a big difference between a speeding ticket and kidnapping. Not anymore I guess.
Leave a Reply
15 Comments on "No Trial for Cahill? – How Many EB3s are There? – Is Steve Grossman an Altar Boy? – How Long Will Judge Mulligan Be on Witness Stand in Probation Trial? – Who is Out to Get Terry Murray?"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
seems to agree , as does your old nemesis Howie. I guess they were probably Cahill fans, but still it’s tough to see how we are to draw the line on this stuff. Did Galvin also launch an ad blitz around election time? If so, is he being investigated as well? While we’re at it, I wonder if Coakley’s office staffed with any “friends of legislators”, or is it a strict meritocracy over there? Is Carmen Ortiz reviewing the personnel files up in the AG’s office, or perhaps at City Hall? The patronage and corruption in this state annoys and disgusts me to no end, but inconsistent enforcement of laws is still more infuriating.
With the proviso that Howie Carr was and is not a Cahill fan (he drank the Baker Kool Aid early in the 2010 race), you raise some interesting questions. In the spirit of Ernie’s shout-out I’ll try to give you some opinions from the village square:
Yes, Galvin launched an ad blitz, but Coakley won’t go after him; she only prosecutes widows, orphans, and political special needs children. To visualize her staff and the internal culture of her office, just think schoolyard bullies with JDs. In fairness, this is sui generis with prosecutors, regardless of jurisdiction.
I’m not certain that patronage per se is so much the problem as it is the disconnect between too many citizens and their local and State government. I’ve seen far more inside games involving contracts to let (wired, I might add legally, by civil servants) than I see among electeds and their staff.
I fear the AG’s standards might be more subjective than not, applied politically and “at the discretion” of the AG’s office. What is the law? What are the standards? Does this make franking criminal? Seriously, what’s the difference between mailing “your local rep serves you” propaganda to constituents and a television ad campaign?
It’s a one party state. This is what we get.
Cahill was indicted for allegedly violating the new Ethics Law – Massachusetts General Law Chapter 268(a); Section 23(b)(2) available for viewing here: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter268A/Section23
This prohibits a state employee from the “use or attempt to use such official position to secure for such officer, employee or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals.”
That law further allows the Ethics Commission to establish by regulation exemptions for “other situations that do not present a genuine risk of a conflict or the appearance of a conflict of interest.” They did that in a series of Advisories, including this one on “unwarranted privileges”:
http://www.mass.gov/ethics/laws-and-regulations-/conflict-of-interest-information/info-section-23/info-section-23/advisory-05-01-standards-of-conduct.html
In that Advisory, they are very clear that “the use of public resources valued at $50 or more for personal, private or political purposes violates the conflict of interest law.” They give many examples.
Franking is not criminal, generally, because it is for “public” purposes of communicating with constituents. Obviously a fine line but there are standards. If a Legislator put anything like “so vote for me” in a mailing costing more than $50 of non-campaign dollars, they would be in violation of the law.
There’s some discretion (as in enforcement of almost any law) but nor that much. Activities are criminal now that were not before the Ethics Law was in effect. Time for politicians to get used to it or get lost.
Scott’s been cranking out 1000 letters a week to Honor Roll students. He’s basically using taxpayer money for his re-election campaign, but is say that he’s just reaching out to constituents.
Thanks for the link. After reading both parts, especially the “examples”, there is NO WAY that this law can be applied uniformly and without political attenuation. It will require the wisdom of Job to see into men’s heart and measure their true intentions…of course, Coakley can do this.
Take the example of an agency head being required to disclose in writing his friendship with a job applicant he refers. So the hack referring his friend writes a letter, says he knows the applicant, and not to let this interfere with the hiring process.
This will stop political hiring? I don’t think so. It merely whitewashes the potential for an appearance of conflict. It improves the optics, but that’s all. It does nothing to prevent nepotism and cronyism.
Short of applicant-blind hiring — no names, just qualifications — a hack job will always be filled with a hack. That’s politics.
Pretty sure he’s Jewish…
“surplice,” not “surplus,” but hey, who around here gets their posts edited?
everyone is not Catholic?
Someone should have told Ernie.
Coakley is a cold-hearted, evil person. Carmen Ortiz overreaches and has political ambitions.
Gee EB3 why don’t these women know their places? A man is hardnosed. A woman is cold-hearted.
And yeah -I don’t suspect that Steve Grossman spent much time in his local parish
I think the distinction between what you offered up as an example and what Cahill did, EB3, is pretty large.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking when I saw Coakley’s picture on the front page of the Globe. How much taxpayer money did she just spend for that bit of publicity?
Though it is different in that Cahill bought ads in the media with our money, as opposed to buying futile showboating legal proceedings, because the Globe would be unlikely to put his picture on the front page just for doing his job, like Coakley is supposedly doing here.
Maybe we should just ban advertising by all government agencies, unless it merits some kind of exception for public safety or something.
eb3 writes: “I do notice that Paul McMorrow, the author of the Murray story and an editor for the magazine writes an occasional opinion piece for Globe.”
Your conspiracy theory dropped a notch, eb. I was the author, just to make sure Paul catches no unnecessary flak. As for your other comments, the story and headlines are both accurate and objective. Read the indictments and Murray has, indeed, become “tangled in Probation web.” She is mentioned five times, including twice on Angelo Matagaras. If that’s not tangled, I don;t know what is. I’ll leave the rest alone.
Antonio Mataragas. Shoulda checked my notes first.
All you Irsih guys sound the same to me.
As for the Terry being tangled in the indictment I don’t see it.
Your choice of words sounds as if she did something wrong. I’m not sure what? She tried to get some people hired by probation. Less than half she recommended gor hired. I think four people. Maybe five.
What was her quid pro quo Jack?
Have you guys talked to experienced federal criminal attorneys?
Jack, you seem to say that because she is references via her job title five times in the report. You interpret that as “tangled”. You and I both know that word infers the Murray was up to no good.
Cheap shot journalism Jack. That’s all.
She wrote letters and made phone calls for people to get jobs.
Question jack, I know you guys “broke” the probation story does that affect how you perceive how this plays out. Do you believe it is worthy of federal indictments? Do you believe Terry Murray and other politicians who recommend people to government jobs should be investigated? In your view Is the probation department different from other state agencies regarding job recommendations.
Five times! She’s mentioned five times!!!
Oh my God. She’s tangled in it.
Now that’s critical thinking. Count the times a name is mentioned. The more times the more damaging the headline.
Journalists continue to amaze me at how they perceive their work and their profession.
And yet, unlike a doctor, teacher, lawyer, accountant, electrician, iron worker, hair dresser, cab driver, funeral director, dog groomer, auto mechanic and thousands of other occupations that require education and licensing anyone with a typewriter and a few bucks to make copies at Kinkos can call themselves a journalists.
And they want a shield law for it.