Councilor Chuck Turner has said, according to the Herald, that his arrest is the result of a “sting operation in order to try to entrap me.” The Council is to meet today to consider what action, if any, to take against Turner. And Turner’s lawyer, Barry P. Wilson, has asked: “What happened to innocent until proven guilty?” Of the Council’s meeting, Wilson said: “This is out of control – out of control. They have no right to do this.”
Let’s agree that entrapment, if proved, is a defense to an accusation of crime. It seems to me that it is not a political defense. A politician who takes a bribe, even if entrapped and therefore not guilty of a crime, is unfit to hold office.
So Wilson’s point, attempting to connect the notion that Turner has not been proved guilty of a crime with the notion that the City Council should not act now, seems unsound to me. Assuming that Turner took the money as alleged in the affidavit, he is unfit to hold office even if he can successfully prove entrapment.
What do you think?
TedF
Turner took a shady $1,000. Whether it was bribe, gift, or “show of appreciation”, it’s still shady and and violates the integrity of an elected office.
Forget all the spin. You’re honest or you’re not. There is no gray area. Here’s an example of what I mean. One has proved his honesty the other has proved the opposite.
Just ug.
<
p>That’s all I have to say.
did he take the money or not.
<
p>He took the money.
<
p>Done.
<
p>So is he.
he’s not done at all. He’s got plenty of mileage to go.
He’s giving a press conference at 2:30pm today to explain his side of the story. That’s less than two hours away. Do you think we can wait those two hours before playing judge and jury?
<
p>To be clear, I am not saying he didn’t do anything wrong. I’m merely proposing we have an ounce of patience here.
I couldn’t hear the press conference. Did he deny taking the money or otherwise explain away the affidavit and the photo?
<
p>TedF
After consulting with his legal team, he decided against giving any details of what took place. That’s too bad . . . I was looking forward to hearing his explanation.
I think he’s engaged in a game of spin and smoke and mirrors. To say that he’s going to fight to protect his honor and reputation (I’ve listened to the press conference now), to try his case in the media, and to ignore the advice of his lawyers against speaking out, and then to fail to proclaim his innocence–well, not a very strong performance in my book.
<
p>TedF
I agree: a legal defense should not hold any water as a political survival strategy. Those who take bribes must go.
<
p>But the incentive for the defendant to confuse the two is almost irresistible, especially when the entrapment in question raises real issues of race and fairness.
<
p>What if people like Wilkerson and Turner know that taking payoffs is standard operating procedure for a good chunk of public officials? Why shouldn’t they feel then that not only they but their constituents have been unfairly done by, not to mention publicly humiliated?
<
p>Or, even if taking bribes is not common, why is the FBI dangling money in front of minority officials who represent poor constituencies? Do they have any evidence that this has been a pattern? Are they doing this to other officials? Should there be some kind of random ethics testing program whereby this is tried on all officials?
<
p>I see too many people on these threads sticking their fingers in their ears, just like in the Chang-Diaz/Wilkerson race, and yelling that the failings of these officials means we don’t have to think or talk about anything else.
<
p>I find it very disappointing when progressives are unable to hold more than one idea in their heads at a time. Or when they seem eager and “relieved* by the certainty that a justified personal condemnation brings. That’s talk-radio quality thinking, folks.
Cannoneo, I’m not sure I have a sense of where you stand on this. On the one hand, you write: “I agree: a legal defense should not hold any water as a political survival strategy. Those who take bribes must go.” But the rest of your post seems to be a critique of such a black-and-white answer.
<
p>Is your point that Turner (if he took the money) must go, and that we have to satisfy ourselves that the government is not acting unfairly here–not exclusively targeting African-American politicians, for instance, while ignoring corruption among white politicians? If so, then I agree.
<
p>TedF
To the question, should Turner go if his only defense is entrapment? I say yes.
<
p>To the question, should we have answers as to why Turner was entrapped or otherwise targeted? I say yes.
<
p>My problem is with people who think answering yes to the first question entails answering no to the second question.
The CW–cooperating witness, not conventional wisdom–is, IMHO, key to any discussion about fairness in these cases. I won’t have a chance to read the indictment, but a question to those of you who have: how did the CW come into the picture? Was he caught and then rolled? Did he come forward voluntarily?
<
p>Unfortunately, we can’t tell if there are other investigations into other politicans because witnesses in those cases either came forward or got piched and are squealing to reduce their own penalties. That means we are missing a major part of the “fairness” yardstick in this case.
According to the affidavit in the Wilkerson case, the CW approached the FBI–not the other way around–in early 2007, before he became a cooperating witness. He told the FBI that “he was present for two cash payments made to WILKERSON in connection with the operation of a nightclub in WILKERSON’s district in Roxbury, Massachusetts.”
<
p>That may not be conclusive on the issue of selective prosecution–perhaps the FBI is blowing off informants who claim that other politicians are corrupt–but it doesn’t seem, from the affidavit at least, that the FBI overreached.
<
p>TedF
As I read the Globe account (11/10/08), CW (believed to be Ron Wilburn) became a “cooperating witness” around the same time in 2007 that his “protege” (and paradoxically his boss), a Mr. Soto, got a sentence of 7 months’ probation on drug charges. (Soto owned the nightclub Mirage at Estelle’s that CW/Wilburn managed before it closed, also in 2007.) So I doubt this was a man just coming forward out of a sense of personal ethics. My guess would be he offered to deliver up Dianne in exchange for leniency for Soto. When the feds said they already had plenty of dirt on her, give us someone else, CW came up with the story about having “heard” that Chuck took money for writing a recommendation for someone with a criminal record. For a link to the Globe story, refer to my comment (#44 or so) under the initial post about Chuck’s arrest.
and I feel embarrassed for everyone in that crowd.
for the fact he didn’t zip up his fly.
<
p>I’m speechless.
He sounded like a raving lunatic at the 2:30 press conference… a lunatic.
…if you could put yourself in his shoes for one second (and give him the benefit of doubt he’s entitled to), and you felt you were unfairly charged with a crime and your least-favorite “colleague” was trying to use the opportunity to summarily boot you out?
I personally have seen many of these corrupt politicians go straight at their opponents and the law when they are caught. He’s fucking guilty and we all know it. He will try anything from racism, entrapment, public support, the pulpit, playing the victim… as their defense and some in the past may have gotten away with it. But people like Turner, Wilkerson, Stevens and other pols who have destroyed our trust deserve nothing from us but venom. They have him cold and he will go down. Unfortunately many people (maybe you too) will watch him be convicted and will suddenly change their story from “He is innocent…” to “why he committed this crime”.
<
p>I wish people would go find and support the 10% “honest” politicians Turner boosted about. They deserve support and the others deserve disgrace.
If he’s not guilty of a crime, I have a hard time with other politicians removing him from office instead of the voters. I’m not saying it can never be done, but it should be approached with extreme caution — especially when on the legislative side and the other legislators can effectively out-vote the allegedly crooked politician.
<
p>We’ve got a system of justice, the courts.
We’ve got a system of democracy, the voters.
We ought to be very careful about any other system removing elected officials from their elected offices.
Council terms are two years long, and all seats are up for election in odd-numbered years.
It was my understanding that entrapment is essentially being coerced into breaking the law, not merely being given the opportunity to break the law. It seems Councilor Turner always had the opportunity to say, “No, thank you,” to the offer. I do of course believe in hearing his side, but I can someone clarify what authority the Council has to remove one of their own and what the procedure is?
My guess is that entrapment as a defense under the law is less than coercion but more than mere opportunity; somewhere inbetween, like unfairly luring. The American Heritage Dictionary (1973 ed.) offers this for “entrap”– 1. to catch in or as if in a trap. 2. to lure into danger, difficulty, or self-incrimination. The same dictionary says that “lure strongly implies capture by calculated and deliberate means” and that lure and its synonyms (entice/tempt/seduce/beguile) “refer to leading or attempting to lead a person from his course, usually into harm or wrong, by exerting a strong attraction.” If Turner did take money as the FBI allege, I think he might be able to make out a reasonable case. (Those in “the world-is-black-and-white, no grays” camp will see it otherwise.) But perhaps someone who practices criminal defense can elucidate the finer elements of an entrapment defense. It probably has to do with what a “reasonable person” would do under the circumstances, and that’s where a jury comes in.
<
p>Successfully defeating the charge on grounds of entrapment is, of course, separate from the issue (mentioned by others earlier) of whether he “should” remain in his councillor seat IF he claims he was lured into taking money and then did take it (for all we know he was giving it back in that grainy picture), but then, that’s where the voters get to decide. I’m still trying to figure out why he’s being charged with “attempted” extortion if the feds say he took it, though.
As to why the U.S. Attorney is pressing charges of attempted extortion if they say Turner took the money: could it be that one of the legal elements necessary to make out the crime of “extortion” (as opposed to “attempted extortion”) is not present, where the “victim” was actually a decoy handing over money from the FBI?
<
p>United States v. Walter, 434 F.3d 30, 35 (1st Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
<
p>TedF
“…sure I took the bribe, but only because it was offered to me.”
<
p>Not exactly heroic stuff, here.
Chuck was obviously going to expose them!
<
p>This is obviously a conspiracy to deny Chuck his civil right to take a bribe!
<
p>Everything the FBI says must be false because Chuck, unlike Diane Wilkerson, doesn’t wear a bra!
<
p>Get real!
<
p>There are better community leaders than Chuck!
<
p>Sal Dimasi for Boston City Council!
<
p>
Give back the money now. Better late than never, right?
Problem solved.
Just give the money bvk! Done.
<
p>Prpblem solved!
<
p>That’s what Sal would do.
<
p>
judging from the comments, looks like a lot of RMG types like to come over to the dark side to chat.
See http://nosuppertonight.com/200… (article and two videos therein from Boston’s May Day 2008 event), and BGM’s May 16, 2008 post at http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryID=11580 on Chuck’s sponsorship of just-cause eviction protection for tenants, in response to the foreclosure crisis (which won the support of all 13 city councillors) to understand why Chuck is near and dear, and important, to the rest of us. And such a threat to the RMG crowd (including the guy in charge of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Massachusetts, if only for a little while longer). That’s why I’ll wait for the trial to draw my conclusions on the charges against Chuck.
Good government is not an RMG vs. BMG issue, and if it were, we’d be in big trouble. I think you’ll find a lot of BMG folks, myself included, who take the view that dishonest politicians should not be in office, whatever their other virtues and whatever policies they support.
<
p>TedF
…be they Republicans, libertarians or conservative Dems/independents. And gleefully, nay, venomously so, in other forums on the internet. (Take a peek, if you haven’t, at comments posted following the stories on the Herald’s and Globe’s websites, where writers don’t even feel the need to conceal their racial animus.) Your own writings suggest you’ve already concluded he’s just plain guilty–hey, we all know the FBI and pictures never lie!– ignoring probably the most important lesson a lawyer can learn, that life exists mostly in the gray areas. If a politician you perhaps felt more akin to was accused, don’t you think you might be a little more willing to reserve judgment (and even forgive, if it came to that later)?
<
p>Since angels are so few, many of his constituents are willing to wait for the whole story for a politician they’ve revered and always known to be honorable. I don’t think many Dems (and others) regret that the public was willing to let Ted Kennedy, a champion for the powerless, put his unfortunate circumstances in Chapaquidick (sp?) behind him so many years ago, even though many felt we never got the whole story. Many conservatives at the time were ready to have his head, if not his career, over what some still feel were unforgivable moral failings in the events that followed Kennedy’s car crash into the island’s waters.
<
p>I appreciate that the discourse about Chuck has been primarily civil in tone on BMG’s site but I guess I have some disappointment that writers on this website representing the Democratic perspective have primarily been, at best, milque-toast and mealy-mouthed in defending Turner’s right to presumption of innocence. And disappointment not to see more writers take umbrage and use their prose to forcefully fight the voices that want a witch-burning. Of course he worked with Wilkerson on projects–they both serve(d) the same community. And, yes, I expect Dems to say in a clear voice that race is part of the issue in this case, on a number of levels mildly touched upon in the comments. And for Turner to say race is a factor in this case is not playing the “race card.” Contrary to wishful thinking in many quarters, racism didn’t go away because we voted in an African-American for president 11 days ago.
I think you have missed the point on a couple of scores. You write that you think I have already concluded Turner is guilty. On the contrary, my point in this thread is that even if he is not guilty as a matter of criminal law, he is unfit for office if he took the money. I’ve also been careful to note that I don’t know if he took the money or not, though the photograph and the affidavit, if true, are pretty damning, right?
<
p>You also worry that commenters here have not sufficiently defended Turner’s presumption of innocence or pointed to the role of race in the case. Of course race is an issue here, but it is entirely unrelated, in my view, to whether Turner ought to stay or go. We need to know, for instance, if the FBI is targeting African American politicians while ignoring evidence of corruption among white politicians. But even if someone proved that the FBI was indeed targeting African American politicians with a bad motive while ignoring the crimes of white politicians, I would still say Turner is unfit for office if he took the money.
<
p>If Turner’s defense to the charge is something other than “I didn’t take the money,” then he should leave. Do you agree, or disagree?
<
p>TedF
…who, me thinks, doth protest too much.
<
p>Sorry it took a while to respond, what with the holiday and wanting to refresh my memory. Having done so, I draw your attention to an analogous situation (links to Boston Globe articles at the end) involving Brian McLaughlin, an Allston-Brighton district city councillor first elected in 1983 on a pro-tenant platform. According to Boston Globe stories, in Oct. 1984, he met with the city’s biggest private residential landlord at the time (Harold Brown, a shady character with ties to a convicted arsonist) in a pub and accepted $1,000 in cash.
<
p>McLaughlin later said he kept the money in a book for four months. After accepting another $1,500 in cash from Brown at the same pub in February 1985, McLaughlin then went to the FBI, who got him to wear a wire while accepting another $2,500 in cash from Brown. Then-U.S. Attorney William Weld prosecuted Brown on other charges but many questioned why McLaughlin’s involvement was only made public after McLaughlin’s 1985 re-election, when he beat back a challenge to his seat on the grounds that his opponent was anti-tenant.
<
p>Questions about McLaughlin’s accepting and holding the money continued to dog him during subsequent elections, but his constituents returned McLaughlin to his seat in 1987 and again, I think, 1989 (the Globe story I found indicated he’d won the primary and appeared positioned to win the final election). Brown wasn’t prosecutioned for the “contribution(s)” to McLaughlin, but pled guilty to paying a bribe for a building permit to another official. McLaughlin, who was not charged with any wrongdoing, denied Brown’s claim at sentencing that McLaughlin had also accepted $400 in cash in 1983. People, both in and outside of his district, were dismayed by McLaughlin’s acts but I don’t recall any widespread calls for his blood. I bring up the story to highlight how prejudices may color the tone of public debate, and to reiterate my point that we should let the court (assuming the case is fairly prosecuted) and Turner’s constituents decide.
<
p>The links are as follows:
COUNCILOR MCLAUGHLIN’S SILENCE; [THIRD Edition]
Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Dec 30, 1985. pg. 14
http://proquest.umi.com.ezprox…
<
p>MCLAUGHLIN DENIES BROWN GAVE HIM $400; [THIRD Edition]
Ed Quill, Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Jun 18, 1986. pg. 21
http://proquest.umi.com.ezprox…
<
p>BID TO UNSEAT DISTRICT COUNCILORS GEARS UP AS PRELIMINARY LOOMS; THIRD Edition] M.E. Malone, Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Sep 16, 1987. pg. 22ELECTION ’87 MCLAUGHLIN LOSES IN ALLSTON-BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL RACE; [THIRD Edition Peggy Hernandez, Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Sep 23, 1987. pg. 31
http://proquest.umi.com.ezprox…
<
p>MCLAUGHLIN FIGHTING TO STAY ON COUNCIL; [THIRD Edition]
Peggy Hernandez, Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Sep 30, 1987. pg. 23
http://proquest.umi.com.ezprox…
<
p>IZZO AND MCLAUGHLIN CLASH OVER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS; THIRD Edition] Sean Murphy, Contributing Reporter. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Nov 2, 1987. pg. 29HUB AT-LARGE COUNCILORS APPEAR HEADED FOR SWEEP OF TOP SPOTS; [FIRST Edition Brian C. Mooney and Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Sep 27, 1989. pg. 30 http://proquest.umi.com.ezprox…
<
p>If the links don’t work, your BPL card should provide access to the stories.]
<
p>
Thanks for the interesting example!
<
p>Of course the voters can elect any fool or crook they want, and they get the government they deserve. But surely McLaughlin’s constituents chose poorly by reelecting him, right?
<
p>Your example seems to suggest disparity in treatment of corrupt politicians by prosecutors. My point all along has been that, regardless of how Turner’s case turns out in the criminal arena, taking the money makes him politically unfit for office. In other words, even if he could say, “I’m not guilty because I was entrapped, and the government is selectively prosecuting me and has overlooked similar offenses by white politicians,” he would still be unfit for office. You obviously disagree, though I don’t think that the “let the voters decide” argument is strong–I think it’s fair to judge the wisdom of the voters’ choices.
<
p>TedF
I wasn’t in McLaughlin’s district, so didn’t get to vote on returning him to his seat, but I probably would have returned him, since he was the best that was running each time. I was (and am) an advocate for maintaining and increasing modest-income housing stock, some version of rent control, and limits on conversion of affordable rental stock into over-priced condominiums (which was rampant in the ’80’s). McLaughlin happened to be the better candidate on those issues than his opponents.
<
p>DiMasi and other white politicians recently in the news do a much more sophisticated version of lining their pockets in a much more big-time way, and sadly we likely don’t know the half of it. As others have asked, will they be prosecuted, be asked to surrender their seats now? Later, if they are prosecuted?
<
p>When Mass. House speaker Charles Flaherty pled guilty to tax evasion and, at the same time, to state ethical violations for receiving $13,000 worth of free vacation lodging from lobbyists and business interests because of his position as speaker, there was very little talk in the media saying that he should leave his seat, only that he should step down as the house speaker, which he did. He eventually decided not to run for re-election, he claimed because he couldn’t afford to pay his attorney fees, but maybe because he didn’t want to risk the embarassment of further questions and maybe even losing. Like Finneran after him, he got a much more lucrative gig in the private sector that made the most of his political connections. The point (or one of them) is, these powerful white guys did the same kind of thing and the outcry was very different. That’s all. They were powerful white guys well-liked by the white majority. Well, Turner is a little guy well-liked by his (district) majority, and then some. And if no one who better speaks to their concerns runs against him, they just might put him in again, just like McLaughlin’s constituents did. And such a collective decision won’t necessarily be irrational.
<
p>If you’re saying there ought to be a law against letting politicians who abuse their office keep their seats or run for re-election, I guess I think the electoral process works better than the alternatives in that regard. I suppose politicians could be sent to jail more often than they are for their infractions (that may be an incentive to keep one’s nose clean, as well as keep ’em from being able to run for office) but you can be sure who gets jail time will be as uniformly and fairly applied as who gets investigated, who gets prosecuted, and who gets lynched in the court of public opinion. No, I guess I’ll stick with saying: let the voters decide.
What makes one one or the other. I post and comment here more than RMG. I feel like I see a lot more Festus Garvey than Frank Skeffington.
<
p>Can we not play the label game just say “We, as a people, should not put up with corrupted bullshit.”