The chances of President Bush granting Tom Finneran a pardon strike me as so remote that it’s hardly worth getting into why it’s a bad idea (among other things, it would require Bush to waive the usual rule that five years must have elapsed since the conviction). The only thing worthy of comment is this: what on earth was Mike Dukakis thinking when he signed the letter urging the pardon? Honestly, this kind of nonsense (excerpted from the letter signed by Dukakis, along with former Govs Weld, Cellucci, and Swift), is beyond belief:
“And he has suffered daily taunts and ridicule of those who believe that every elected official is the equivalent of a common thief,” the governors told the president in their letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe.
Memo to Finneran, the honorable ex-Governors, and anyone else who worries about the fact that some people “believe that every elected official is the equivalent of a common thief”: the elected officials who commit crimes, like Tom Finneran, play a big role in causing that problem. So the fact that Finneran’s conviction has led to public ridicule is not remotely an argument in favor of a pardon. In fact, it’s an argument against a pardon, since the only way to counter the problem of public disrespect for elected officials is to ensure that, when public officials do commit crimes, they are punished for them without special treatment. And if a presidential pardon isn’t special treatment, I don’t know what is.
In any event, does anyone really think that a pardon is going to stop Howie Carr and the rest of the talk radio crowd from making fun of Finneran? If anything, it will turn up the volume.
So, well, Finneran had ALMOST stopped being news worthy. Then this. I bet the market for Finneran Pinatas at Fanueil Hall has just gone up 100%.
This kind of thing solidifies the “honor among thieves” concept in the citizen. But, Mike isn’t running for anything, so this can’t hurt him.
<
p>The talk I’ve heard about presidential pardons by Mr. Bush makes Tommy’s case a small fish indeed. Presidential Libraries must be funded, so look for big bucks to give a get-out-of-jail card not so free to many cons.
<
p>Is Las Vegas laying odds on pardons?
Would the case for a pardon be undercut if taunts were offered without ridicule, or ridicule without taunts?
<
p>What about the taunts and ridicule he receives from people who don’t believe that every elected official is the equivalent of a common thief, but that this one is. Shouldn’t those also be considered in the plea?
<
p>A “common thief”.
<
p>I don’t see it?
“We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariff, and foreign policy; but we cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure .” – President Teddy Roosevelt
I knew someone would say that.
<
p>Like harrassing workers for ‘stealing time”.
<
p>I want to see the transcript. i have my doubts.
<
p>Am I being unreasonable?
And I hear it is hundreds of pages, so wouldn’t have the time to wade through it anyway.
<
p>But let’s go through a little of what we have seen (in the press). Starting with the Boston Globe account:
<
p>”In a transcript of his testimony, Finneran repeatedly denied seeing the plan until it was filed with the House clerk, when all members of the House see the plan.
<
p>’Did you review any of the redistricting plans as the process proceeded?’ Finneran was asked.
<
p>’Not as the process proceeded, No sir,’ he responded.
<
p>’So the first time you saw a redistricting plan was when the redistricting committee disseminated its plan to the full House, is that your testimony?’
<
p>’hat is my testimony. Yes, sir,’ Finneran responded.”
<
p>We also have seen this part a lot:
<
p>”And did you review a number of the redistricting plans as the process proceeded?”
<
p>”No, I did not.”
<
p>”When was the first time you saw a redistricting plan?”
<
p>”It would have been after the committee on redistricting filed its plan with the House clerk as a member [of the House] who has an interest. All members do have an interest.”
<
p>In the speaker’s defense, we have this (also from the Globe):
<
p>Egbert highlighted several passages from Finneran’s testimony during the trial last year to show that the speaker freely admitted involvement in the redistricting process. Specifically, Egbert pointed to an exchange in which Finneran said he spoke “in the area of a dozen” times with Lawrence S. DiCara, the lawyer in charge of redistricting. The exchange also showed that Finneran testified he talked “from time to time” with House Redistricting Committee chairman Thomas M. Petrolati.
<
p>I suspect that is the best they could come up with after putting the legal team to work combing through for anything truthful he might have said.
<
p>This hardly sounds like a case of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To me.
<
p>
<
p>What do you think the first things he’s going to do if he gets a pardon? Apply for reinstatement of his pension, seek restoration of his law license, and start looking for more private-sector lobbying gigs, maybe.
He will be getting his law license back soon I believe and he can lobby anytime he wants.
<
p>But the pension? A pardon could negate the conviction which means he starts collecting pension. All depends what statute says.
Have you read the complete testimony transcript during which Finneran committed perjury?
<
p>I would like to. Perhaps a BMGer could find it and post a link.
<
p>Something stinks about the Finneran indictment. Civil rights attorney Harvey Silvergate wrote about it.
<
p>I seemed to me more of a move by toady Michael Sullivan to ingratiate himself with the Bush Justice Dept. Remember what happened to the US Attorneys who did not go after Democrats? Sullivan got a promotion. Now heads ATF.
<
p>If I we can see the transcripts we could better argue if Finneran was screwed.
<
p>His plea of guilty means crap. The jury trial was a crap shoot because he is a politician. He could have faced jail time and it woud have cost hundreds of thousand in legal fees.
<
p>I believe the facts he perjured himself on were not material to the underlying case. That is a required element to prove perjury, I believe.
<
p>The material fact in the underlying case was whether race was used as factor in drawing his district, and I think one other.
<
p>He perjured himself by saying “I did not see the map.”
<
p>What does that mean?
<
p>What does seeing the map mean? All of the map. All 160 districts carefully drawn out with streets etc.?
<
p>Just some districts with specifics?
<
p>Did he receive updates, phone calls, etc on some districts?
<
p>Did he influence districts by telling the redistricting committee exactly how he wanted some districts to look?
<
p>He was cocky and arrogant. Big Deal! Ever see a cop testify?
<
p>Nit picking testimony and finding some inconsistencies which then allow a perjury indictment is scary.
<
p>I recall reading that he never denied influencing and being part of the process; and at other times in the testimony he he inferred oreven stated that he saw “the map”.
<
p>I think this may have been one of those times. However, unless I see the four corners of the trial transcript I cannot judge.
<
p>Sorry David. I need facts. Not a knee jerk reaction.
<
p>BTW Custom says you need at least 5 years post conviction to get a pardon. Finneran can apply again in four or eight years depending when Obama leaves. But he will have the letters all the letters of recommendation from this time around plus new ones.
<
p>Dukakis, Weld, et al can be hit by a bus tomorrow.
Guilty pleas don’t mean “crap.” They mean that he willingly admitted to committing a crime in open court.
<
p>I have little doubt that he was asked “Do you understand that this means that you are admitting to a crime?” and he answered “Yes.”
<
p>So now we are expected to believe that when he admitted to perjury, he was really just lying?
I haven’t seen the trial rtanscript (and don’t know if it isavailable to the public) but the court decision is online at: http://www.senate.mn/departmen…
<
p>In that decisin, the court says “The Committee (and the House as a whole) apparently was content to leave the heavy lifting to Finneran, Petrolati, their aides, and the Committee staff. Finneran and Petrolati kept the process on a short leash.”
<
p>The go on to add (in Footnote 3): “Although Speaker Finneran denied any involvement in the redistricting process, the circumstantial evidence strongly
suggests the opposite conclusion. For one thing, he handpicked the members of the Committee and placed Petrolati at the helm. For another thing, he ensured that the Committee hired his boyhood friend and long-time political collaborator, Lawrence DiCara, as its principal functionary. Last – but far from least – Finneran’s in-house counsel, John Stefanini, had the Maptitude software installed on his computer in the Speaker’s office suite and was one of only four legislative staffers who received training in how to use the software.”
<
p>The prosecuting attorney who questioned Finneran at trial has said publicly, “If the speaker did nothing wrong in connection with the redistricting and was proud of what happened, he would not have lied to cover up the facts. He now seems to seek to blame his lies on my questions, claiming that the questioning was “political and combative,” and therefore his answers were political and combative also. My questions were straightforward and Mr. Finneran’s answers were not “political and combative” — they were false. Incidentally, he was asked almost the same questions at deposition many months earlier and gave almost the same answers.”
<
p>The bottom line, in my opinion, is that Finneran perjured himself when (in the court’s words) he “denied any involvement in the redistricting process” not simply on the specific issue of whether he did or did not see the map.
<
p>Without seeing the full transcipt, agreed, one cannot be 100% certain. However, based on all the press reporting I’ve read about this case, it doesn’t seem to me that this is an example of “nitpicking the testimony.”
<
p>I find it highly unlikey that the court would go to the trouble of writing such a detailed condemnation of the Speaker’s testimony if it wasn’t true that he did really deny “any involvemennt.”
I watt to see what the evidence. The transcript
I watt to see what the evidence. The transcript
…is available on PACER (public access to federal courts), which anyone can access.
<
p>Here’s the transtipt from count one (of four):
<
p>q. And did you review a number of the redistricting plans as the process proceeded?
a. No, I did not.
<
p>q. Did you review any of the redistricting plans as the process proceeded?
a. Not as the process proceeded. No sir.
<
p>q. Okay. When was the first time you saw a redistricting plan?
a. It would have been after the redistricting committee filed it’s plan witht the House Clerk as a member who as interest. All members do have an interest. I would have availed myself to it and made a review of it.
<
p>q.. So the first time you saw the plan was when the redistricting committee disseminated it’s plan to the full house, is that your testimony?
a. That is my testimony.
<
p>q. Did you know what was going to be in the redistricting plan before it was distributed?
a. No. I did not.
<
p>From count two:
<
p>q. And was the – was your review of the redistricting plan when it was distributd to the full House the first time you had information about the changes in your distict in particular?
a. Yes, it was. Sir.
<
p>q. Had you spoken to Chairman Petrolati prior to that time about changes to your district?
a. Not to my district. No, sir.
<
p>The whole thing is 26 pages. If there’s a way to upload the pdf to here I will, or I can email if somebody wants to put it up somewhere else.
<
p>
I can then get them off PACER and post them.
Still not the complete transcript, from which the four corners are the complete basis for the perjury. Needs to be read.
Indictment.
is 2005-10140. The civil case that it all stemmed out of is 2002-11190, but the full transcript is not available online- I think you’d have to contact the clerk at the federal courthouse for that.
to pardon MA former leading Republican Speaker of the House, Thomas Finneran? Where’s the surprise?
<
p>At least Blago is toast.
Remember, he still has to be tried by the Senate. That will take at least some time. Still, at this point there doesn’t seem to be much doubt as to the outcome.
Tom Finneran was a good Speaker who accomplished many things for this state. But, those things have been forgotten because he succumbed to his own hubris on one given day. He, indeed, has paid a high price for that running off at the mouth…but so has his family. The former MA governor’s signed the letter of request to President Bush because they of all people know exactly how much Finneran’s contributions to the state outweigh his offense.
<
p>Now Finneran turns to President Bush…you know him, the guy who has cost us trillions in treasure and heartbreaking loss of hundreds of thousands in an unnecessary war, the guy who has been at the helm while our economy was driven into the gutter by greedy manipulators, the guy who stole an election out from under the American people…yes, Finneran looks to this paragon of virtue for a pardon…Finneran’s offenses did not cause a loss of life, loss of public funds or damage our reputation internationally…he should be given the pardon so his family will not be deprived the benefit of a pension he earned and so that he can return to practicing law for the benefit of his family.
<
p>Compared to President Bush’s offenses, Finneran’s seem laughable.