Before being accused of going negative in the 11th hour, let me point out that the JP Gazette just released this story
, it is a new story (not like the crap the Bean tried to pull when she just rehashed 3 month old stories.) and I have more to add to that story. I think it merits discussion regardless of the timing of the election.
In 2005 then AG Tom Reilley brought charges against then State Senator Diane Wilkerson on corruption charges. When Coakley was elected AG, she inherited the case. Instead of pursuing the hard line that Riley had taken with Wilkerson, she settled the case.
“But the settlement included an unnoticed extra benefit for Wilkerson: immunity against any type of civil or criminal penalty for any campaign finance reporting violations she may have committed at any time through 2007.
This immunity aspect of the settlement became significant when new corruption charges were brought against Wilkerson in 2008 by the FBI.
“A conviction on any of those charges-or even some alternative explanations not involving bribery-could lead to related state charges or complaints, including for filing inaccurate campaign finance reports.”
The shear amount of different corruption charges that Wilkerson has been accused of make it difficult to talk about, so it bears repeating. Coakley settled a case that began in 2005 by extending immunity for Wilkerson into 2007. The FBI is pursuing an entirely different corruption case that began in 2008 for bribes taken in 2007.
The key is obviously that Coakley gave Wilkerson immunity for the time frame in which she was taking bribes. So she can’t pursue that charge. In other words, Coakley couldn’t pursue Wilkerson’s case if she wanted to. She tied her own hands.
This is certainly a blunder, and an embarrassing one at that. But, mistakes happen. It is not like she knowingly or intentionally gave her immunity to the 2008 Federal charges.
The big problem is that Coakley said she did not pursue Wilkerson because she didn’t have the resources. This is not true. She could not have pursued regardless of resources because she had granted her immunity for the time period in which she accepted bribes.
Bob Oakes, WBUR: But in your record, as was pointed out in a recent Boston magazine profile of you, you allowed federal prosecutors to pursue the recent indictments against former Massachusetts House Speaker Sal DiMasi and former state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, and there’s some suggestion that not moving on those issues was political, knowing that going after popular State House leaders causes political problems during campaigns because supporters of those leaders would be less likely to support you.
Boston College law professor Bob Bloom says in that Boston magazine article: “I found Martha to be a less than courageous prosecutor.” Respond to that.
Coakley: The federal government has a huge budget, they can target cases, they have grand jury tools and investigatory tools that the state does not. And they also have the ability to have statutes that have penalties that are nowhere near what we have on the state level.
They have the FBI, they have folks who will focus on, you know, turning a witness, etc. We don’t have those tools. And maybe the legislature for whatever reason doesn’t want an attorney general to have the tools. But if you want the kinds of results that the federal government gets, you have to give someone the tools. No one understands that better than I.
There is no mention at all of the immunity Wilkerson had, no mention of the 2007 settlement at all. She instead frames it in terms of a lack of resources. This is patently false. If she had all the resources in the world, she could not pursue Wilkerson. And she absolutely knows this because she is the one that signed the documents that granted immunity.
I don’t know why she misstated these facts.
The real answer to why she did not pursue Wilkerson is because she granted her immunity. She could not pursue her if she wanted to.
From the article. Here’s the full citation, which doesn’t support the spin the Capuano supporters behind this diary would like to place on the story.
<
p>This makes it abundantly clear that the State under the settlement could in fact go after Wilkerson and win harsher penalties for the alleged campaign finance violations in 2008 after Wilkerson’s current bribery case is resolved.
<
p>This poster has selectively picked a few paragraghs of a longer piece and run them here with a demonstrably false interpretation.
<
p>Really weak.
Please note that “supporter” should be singular in the second line. One person posted this and after reading more carefully I notice that the diarist did not indicate which candidate s/he is supporting. Let’s not be so quick to see a conspiracy.
I think BitB assumes that the diarist is not a supporter of Martha Coakley. I certainly share the “spin” that BitB complains of, so I think she’s on firm enough ground in using the plural instead of the singular.
<
p>She is, nevertheless, mistaken in her objection.
<
p>The original diarist (singular) published a link to the full article. I read it (and assume others did as well). The “fair use” policy of BMG is to cite fragments of published material — presumably fragments that support the viewpoint of the commenter. The diarist found a story, published a diary pertaining to it, and supported the story with a link to the source material and carefully-chosen excerpts. That’s what is supposed to happen here.
<
p>Bean in the ‘Burbs found and cited a different paragraph supporting a different (although in my view incorrect) interpretation. Again, just what is supposed to happen here.
<
p>No harm, no foul.
<
p>Regarding the substance of Bean’s dispute, I think she’s simply mistaken. The issue in dispute is the accuracy of Ms. Coakley’s claim that she could not pursue Ms. Wilkerson because “We don’t have those tools.” In fact, as the diarist points out, the AGs office could not have prosecuted Ms. Wilkerson for crimes committed through 2007 even with infinite resources — because of the settlement agreement that Ms. Coakley herself negotiated.
<
p>Martha Coakley’s answer to Bob Coakes in Wednesday’s interview crosses my own boundary between spin and flat-out distortion. I appreciate the JP Gazette for picking up the story and I appreciate the diarist for posting it here.
I don’t think it is criminal, corrupt or anything scandalous, but I do think it shows the modicum of courage and conviction our AG has.
<
p>One could say she lied when she answered the question and one could say she avoided the truth. Either way, it is not a totally honest answer and it would appear to be more of the same, politicaly charged answer that we have come to expect from the ruling class upon Beacon Hill.
<
p>It is a large contrast to my candidate Mike Capuano, who as bitb points out seems angry and claims to not have the temperament for a Senator. This is exactly why many of us are supporting the congressman. It is not spin to call it passion. Those of us who have spoken to him or joined him at an open mike (70 across the state since the campaign began!) know we need his combination of passion and smarts in the U.S. Senate. Capuano supporters also admire the brutally honest answers he gives which are not scripted and without filter.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
but given her penchent for ineffective pre-trial parole agreements – Father Jack Geoghan, Diane Wilkerson – and her penchect for losing (or winning then losing) court cases – Melendez-Diaz SC appeal, Louise Woodward, Cheryl Lefave – shouldn’t we recognize her strentgh not as a career prosecutor but as a DA and AG who ineffctively pled out cases because she didn’t have the resources?
I think the added details on the settlement give some extra insight, which (to me at least) make Martha’s decision even more baffling.
<
p>The paragraph you cited underlines the fact that the whole point of the settlement was to put the AG in a better position to prosecute any future infractions by Wilkerson. As you point out, immunity was granted in exchange for harsher penalties on any violations after 2007.
<
p>If Martha truly believed she didn’t have the resources to pursue the Wilkerson case further, why would she make this agreement? Why settle a case you’ve already poured resources into investigating in exchange for harsher penalties on future cases you know you won’t be able to pursue? It seems much smarter to invest in the charges you’ve already substantiated. If it was really a matter of time and money, Martha should never have signed the settlement.
<
p>This blame-game is just a way for Coakley to avoid answering to her actions and true motivations. Even if the settlement was perfectly justified, we don’t get a chance to hear why, because Martha insists on dishonesty. As a voter, I’m sick of being misled. I want the truth, not a finger pointed at the easiest scapegoat.
<
p>Since Martha refuses to give a truthful answer, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for us to speculate on her real reasons. Looking back at the Geoghan case, and at Martha’s behavior during this campaign, I’m sensing a pattern. She does what’s easy. She avoids confrontation and controversy.
<
p>As I’ve said before, I want a Senator who will make the hard decisions, who will stand up when others won’t, who is passionate and courageous enough to incite real change. My candidate, Mike Capuano, has shown time and time again that he’s willing to do that. I have yet to see any solid evidence of the same from Coakley.
He’s been in Congress 10 years, and his entire record consists of placing earmarks in exchange for contributions linked to a lobbying firm that has gone out of business because it’s under federal investigation. Oh woot.
<
p>
“his entire record” – time for you do some a little reading.
That was the one where you posted the list headed by the proclamation for the Red Sox World Series victory.
<
p>Capuano’s a back-bencher. Here is what it says about him on the govTrack website.
<
p>
<
p>The only other thing he’s really got to his credit (besides the pork and the lobbyist ties) is the OCE. But how much credit should he really get for it? This piece from Roll Call is interesting:
<
p>Seldom have so many purported progressives been so in love with so little.
Of course I can. Here’s a starter list:
<
p>Most significantly, in my eyes, he co-founded the Congressional Caucus on Sudan. While the majority of Washington was ignoring the brutal genocide in Darfur, Mike fought to bring attention to the crisis, and succeeded in pushing Congress to declare the mass killings a genocide. He proposed, and successfully secured, an additional $50 million be allocated for the African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur. He worked with Rep. Moran to included funding to rebuild governmental institutions in Southern Sudan in the 2010 budget. He’s made it a personal mission to press for international attention and an appropriate humanitarian response to what is undoubtedly one of the biggest tragedies of our time.
<
p>He also chaired the bipartisan Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, and created the Office of Congressional Ethics, allowing citizens oversight over ethics issues involving their elected officials. This was a huge step toward greater transparency and accountability in government.
<
p>Mike also earned the endorsement of the Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters with his extensive record of fighting for more responsible environmental policy. He was responsible for hiring Massachusetts’ first “Environmental Officer” during his tenure as Mayor of Somerville, leading the charge for government involvement in environmental protection. He’s been a vocal advocate of cap and trade systems, and helped to pass the Climate Stewardship Act in the House. He co-sponsored the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, promoting energy security by increasing CAFE standards regulating the fuel economy of vehicles sold in the US.
<
p>And even when he isn’t successful, Mike still makes it his policy to stand up for the issues he believes in, despite the level of opposition. He’s fought against the Patriot Act, FISA, an underfunded, test-driven No Child Left Behind, and the Iraq war. Even if he wasn’t on the winning side, he held his ground. Those displays of courage and conviction are just as significant to me as the legislation he successfully pushed through.
<
p>So I’ve answered your question….can you answer mine? If Coakley was telling the truth, and it really was a question of resources, why would she make the settlement? Why would she compromise in favor of future investigations she “knew” she wouldn’t be able to pursue? Why not push for prosecution of crimes she’d already spent valuable resources investigating?
The bribery investigation that has resulted in charges against Wilkerson (better pursued by an investigative organization like the FBI) and the campaign finance reporting violations case brought by Reilly that dragged on until Coakley came in to office and settled it.
<
p>I assume that Coakley settled the campaign finance case because it wasn’t worth taking to trial – that the costs and attorney-time involved in doing so, weighed against the likelihood of achieving a conviction, and the potential penalties in the event of conviction, made it a wiser decision to settle.
<
p>Here is some information about the relief sought in the original suit by Reilly.
<
p>It isn’t much, is it? How many hours of attorney time in court do you think this relief would be worth? What other cases would not be able to be pursued in consequence? Did you think perhaps that Wilkerson was going to go to jail, or something, if the case wasn’t settled?
If the settlement was entirely justified, why doesn’t Coakley just come out and say that? Why be dishonest in her answer? The reason she didn’t prosecute Wilkerson wasn’t because she didn’t have the resources to do so, it’s because she made the decision to settle back in 2007. If that was the right decision, what’s the problem? Why obfuscate your real motivations? Why say it was a lack of resources? You shouldn’t have to come here to defend her decision to settle–but you’re forced to, because she, once again, dances around the question. It seems that in interviews, she just gives the easiest answer, even if it isn’t the truth. This is an extremely important campaign, I don’t want everything boiled down to talking points. Martha’s reasoning could be perfectly sound, but if she tells us something else entirely, we work with what we’re given.
<
p>In its article, the JP Gazette says (emphasis mine)
<
p>
<
p>This immunity will preclude federal investigators from pursuing any campaign finance charges in their prosecution of Wilkerson, limiting their options. The article goes on to say,
<
p>
<
p>That certainly sounds like more than a little fudging on her OCPF reports. The “campaign finance violations” for which she was given blanket immunity (not, as Neil pointed out, immunity for specifically documented cases), seem to be closely tied with any potential bribery charges. Tens of thousands of unexplained reimbursements? I’m sure those crimes would enhance the case the FBI is building. These aren’t entirely isolated incidents, this is a pattern of corruption. Martha ensured that a whole host of lies and shady financial transactions are off-limits in the FBI’s case.
There is no dishonesty in Coakley’s answer. Two different things were under discussion. The AG’s office is not the FBI. The sting that took down Wilkerson involved, among other things, informants and an undercover agent. The campaign finance case preceeded it, and based on the information about the remedies sought in Reilly’s original suit, there was little value in taking it to court. The feds don’t need Wilkerson’s old campaign finance sins to make a bribery case around what was discovered in the 2008 sting. The settlement provides for, in fact, harsher penalties for the 2008 issues.
<
p>Plus, who really cares at this point? Wilkerson’s political career is over. Would adding a few more campaign finance violations to the charges she’s already facing make a difference to anyone?
<
p>I’m completely with Amberpaw on the vacuity of this line of argument. It’s just the flimsiest possible rationale for the Capuano hit squad to say ‘Coakley’ and ‘lying’ together 50 times.
<
p>
<
p>and it belies your admission that Coakley’s blanket immunity has become an issue in the Fed’s case, not related to the current bribery in 2009 but past bribery in 2007.
<
p>If I didn’t know better I’d think you didn’t care about ACTUAL illegal acts by legislators peddling illegal influence for campaign donations but you’ve been going on and on about it, albeit without much substance, hence I’m sure you do care about it. So in this case you’ve vonveniently decided not to becuase it reflects poorly on Martha Ciakley.
<
p>Law enforcemrnt works when people pay the price for their illegal acts. To say, it doesn’t matter becuase her political career is over is wrong in so many ways, the least of which is the counterincentive created for others by prosecuting and sentencing those known to do it. In this case Wilkerson with her blamket immunity given by Martha Coakley.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s on 20 counts or 40 counts. She’s over.
<
p>Please don’t try to interpret my motives, what I care about or claim I don’t care about the law. You have no knowledge of any of these.
<
p>It doesn’t matter to YOU. But that’s not the same as it doesn’t matter.
<
p>It’s telling that you’re ready to dismiss Wilkerson’s 2007 law breaking because Coakley is implicated by her inneffective blanket immunity agreement but when it comes to other politicians, you’re like a Rottweiller ripping into a child’s face.
against any type of civil or criminal penalty for any campaign finance reporting violations Wilkerson may have committed at any time through 2007 as opposed to just the ones AG Tom Reilley had documented?
<
p>
<
p>Reilly pressed his case with whatever resources he had. Coakley, with the same resources as Reilly, quickly settled with a $10,000 fine and a blank check to do more of the same with impugnity.
<
p>Do the math: How is a $10,000 fine plus immunity from complying with campaign finance law a consequence of significant impact to keep Wilkerson from doing the same again? Oh, nevermind. We know how that story ends. Wilkerson does it again and Coakley’ immunity deal keeps the Feds from making their case.
<
p>Ever notice with Martha when the shit hits the fan she has a ready excuse? “We didn’t have the reources” LIE!
But it’s a convenient truth that allows the AG to avoid responsibility for an uncomfortable part of their job, prosecuting legislative corruption.
<
p>The most troubling part of the Wilkerson scandal to me, is the damage is has done politically to the minority community. Allowing Wilkerson (and Chuck Turner) to get away with this corruption marginalizes this community in terms of power and influence at the state and city levels. I think Coakley (and perhaps others) have a good deal of responsibility for that.
You presume Chuck to be guilty.
<
p>Not one shred of genuine evidence exists to bolster this conclusion.
Supposedly he took a bribe from an investigator. There is even a picture of him taking the money. That sounds like at least a “shred” of evidence to me.
It’s a photograph of a frozen moment in time. One cannot ascertain from that photograph if money was entering Chuck’s hands, leaving Chuck’s hands, or simply there within his hands. One certainly cannot ascertain from that photograph why monies would be transferring hands, nor can one ascertain from that photograph the sum of monies in question. Please read this article by John Andrews.
<
p>As Mr. Andrews observed: “There is no evidence in the picture that an illegal cash transaction has occurred, and importantly, there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.”
a campaign donation? His only issue would be a cash donation over the limit. Much different than a bribe. It is a shred of evidence of something, just not absolutely a bribe.
“Such a picture could be taken of almost any politician that the FBI chose to target,” John wrote, as “… Almost every elected official on Beacon Hill has accepted such donations.” Who, campaigning for public office, does not? I have accepted cash donations as well, during my own campaigns. However the FBI may hope to spin the facts in evidence, those facts now known can also point to perfectly legal activity. None of the known facts in evidence indicate Turner solicited monies from the witness, and none of the known facts in evidence indicate Turner had ever once attempted to secure for the witness a license.
<
p>What clearly does seem in evidence is that the FBI can tar nearly anyone’s reputation merely by shoving a wad of bills in his face — and that is just plain unacceptable. By the way, 65% of liquor licenses handed out in 2006 were to clients of one major law firm, a law firm that contributed over $100,000 in contributions to such as Menino and Connolly. The real quid pro quos, however, never seem to result in anyone being dragged off in handcuffs in front of the media.
This is definitely something that Coakley needs to clarify. There seems to be a major inconsistency here between what she knew to be true, and what she said about the case.
<
p>I think we all need to give her the benefit of the doubt though until she has a chance to answer tomorrow.
The only immunity provided related to campaign finance, which was the subject of the case settled. It didn’t extend to bribery, which is the case the FBI pursued, using hidden cameras etc., against Wilkerson. Coakley’s statement is simply … accurate. She doesn’t have an FBI to investigate cases with undercover agents and tools. She didn’t tie the state’s hand with regard to bribery.
<
p>
The posts above make it sound like Coakley agreed to take a hands-off approach to any wrong-doing by Wilkerson and that’s not how I read the settlement language quoted above. The case was settled in 2007. The case involved campaign finance violations. The immunity applies to “campaign finance reporting violations” committed through 2007. It is not uncommon when settling a case to include in the settlement unknown violations that could come to light later on. Both sides settling a case want finality, and both sides give up something. Many settlements contain a re-opener provision that is triggered by certain circumstances; I have no idea if this one does. But the posters above make it sound like Coakley gave Wilkerson a free pass on all crimes and that just isn’t true.
Neither Coakley or Capuano are half as bad as these last-second attacks are trying to make them out to be. This is a compressed campaign, and it’s already enough to make me wonder why anyone would willingly put their reputation through this.
Ridiculously spun interpretation of an egregious journalistic hit-piece: 1
<
p>number of hours since original post: 27
<
p>Number of posts without a response or reply from original poster[1]: 64
<
p>Using the first diary of a month old BMG account to poison the Democratic primary, and start the general election: Priceless….
<
p>
<
p>Here’s my ridiculously spun interpretation of this hit piece: Scott Browns polling tells him that Martha Coakley is the nominee…
<
p>
<
p>[1] who claimed ” I think it merits discussion…‘
A chain of exchanges is gone.
<
p>Was this intentional? If so, why? If not, how?
<
p>What is going on?