There are occasional posts here, particularly during election seasons, about the Green-Rainbow Party and its quixotic quest for a statewide office. One widely-held view is that the GRP is and will continue to be irrelevant unless it can devote its energies to winning some seats in the legislature or in local offices. Others disagree.
I wondered today about the GRP’s reaction to the impending hearing at which Councilor Turner is expected to be expelled from the City Council, since Turner is affiliated with the GRP. The GRP webpage had a feisty article criticizing essentially all the players in the Turner trial–the judge, the prosecutors–except Turner himself. If this article represents sentiments among the GRP members and leadership, I think it is another strong indication of irrelevance. All political parties–Democrats, Republicans, and “others”–need to be able to say, “we won’t put up with felons in office.” That’s not asking too much. And it’s perfectly permissible to couple condemnation with appreciation for the wrongdoers’ many good deeds in public office, but the website article doesn’t even really do that.
This is hard for some Democrats, too–BMG has had its shares of defenders of the various Democratic miscreants in recent years. But there has been a strong sentiment on BMG, which I share, in favor of what we could call the “goo-goo agenda,” harkening back to the Tammany Hall era in NYC.
So, Greens, what do you say?
TedF
Corruption is ok as long as it’s not CORPORATE corruption.
<
p>Just like windmills are bad if they’re CORPORATE winmills, aka Big Wind.
I don’t speak for the GRP, but I would like to respond.
<
p>In my South End News column, I tried to look at this in some legal and political context.
<
p>1. The FBI’s Turner affidavit, shows that the FBI targeted Turner for a sting for no reason – there was absolutely no evidence of previous wrongdoing. The paid informant, probably trying to earn or enhance his keep, told the FBI he “had heard that Turner took cash payments in connection with his official position.” So, while all the involved officials explicitly named by Wilkerson and the informant (including Mayor Menino and his aide, Michael Kineavy (who illegally deleted all his emails), Liquor Licensing Board chair Dan Pokaski, then City Council President Maureen Feeney, and several state legislators) were left untouched, the FBI thought it a good investment of its resources to set up an elaborate sting on the basis of a second-hand rumor from an informant paid to bring the FBI sting targets. The informant , the FBI said, “reported one specific instance of Turner taking a cash payment for writing a letter of recommendation for an individual with a criminal record” — also a rumor. I have asked Turner about this; he said he had indeed written a letter of recommendation for a released prisoner; he’s long fought for state CORI reforms that were finally passed, with much BMG kudos to Deval Patrick, to help formerly imprisoned people become productive working citizens of the community, and he tries to help them do that. But as Chuck said, “Does it make sense that I would try to extort money from a guy just coming home from prison, who was applying for a job at a CVS?” No, it does not. And it was a private job, not a public job. This is not like the Probation Department, where legislators were over-funding the Department to get their cronies and family hired by the state. How many people have asked elected officials for letters of recommendation for a job, or a grant, or a college application? This is not a violation of any sort. So, in sum, the FBI decided to target him without cause, and the informant was paid to set the trap. The informant admitted to the Boston Globe that Chuck was “naive” but “not a thief.”
<
p>2. Chuck was not doing the informant any favors for which he could even try to extort a bribe, nor did he have the power to do anything worth a bribe. He was just calling for a public hearing on possible racial discrimination, since no liquor licenses had been granted in the black neighborhood “Empowerment Zone,” where they would help with much-needed economic development. The informant and Dianne Wilkerson and the FBI put him in the middle of a vortex of corrupt activity — but he wasn’t part of it. As the Turner affidavit shows (bottom of p. 3), even the informant was complaining about how little Turner was doing to help him get the license.
<
p>3. The amount of money that changed hands is not known and may not meet even an ethics threshold. According to the FBI affidavit on Wilkerson, the informant handed her cash that she could see and count, and he actually said how much he was giving her, and she acknowledged it. But with Turner, the informant didn’t do that – I believe that’s because he knew that Turner wouldn’t take it if he knew what it was. He had to hide it in his palm, and slip it into a handshake, to look like a little “tip” – hence, the “preacher’s handshake.” Turner got it without asking for it, without expecting it, and without seeing it first and consenting. I understand that the FBI broke protocol and didn’t count out the money on camera first; nor did it search the informant afterwards to confirm than he didn’t skim any. I haven’t heard any reports that the FBI found their marked bills in Turner’s possession, which is the point of marking the bills. So, for all we know, Turner doesn’t remember this incident because the amount of money really was the “take your wife to dinner” magnitude, as the informant told him at the hand-off. If it was $50 or less, there is no violation at all. If it was more, it is an ethics violation and should have been treated as such. Instead, the FBI turned it into a federal case by getting a liquor store owner to testify that most liquor in Massachusetts is manufactured out of state, and therefore this comes under their inter-state commerce jurisdiction. A couple of years ago, Councilor Mike Ross fixed 35 of his City parking tickets, worth $1000; when he was caught, he got a $2,000 ethics fine, period. (I hear another ethics complaint was just filed against him yesterday, the day of the expulsion, for something else.)
<
p>4. Turner raises disturbing questions about the US Attorney’s office in his FenwayNews piece about politicization of criminal investigations. Since there were plenty of named officials implicated in the Wilkerson documents, why on earth would the FBI go looking to make a criminal out of a previously innocent and rather peripherally related official, who has too little power to merit bribery or threaten extortion. Why? The informant himself tried to refuse to testify, and was threatened with jail. He said himself that Turner was “naïve” and “not a thief.”
<
p>This seems to be another Greek tragedy of the “no good deed goes unpunished” variety. Not to mention our Boston/Massachusetts addendum, “and no bad one goes punished.”
<
p>
Shirley, your comment personifies the problem. You cannot bring yourself to say: “If you have been convicted of a felony, particularly a crime against the public like taking a bribe, cannot hold office.” You point the blame at everyone but the felon. The FBI wronged him by targeting him for investigation. You excuse the bribe because Turner wasn’t able to deliver for the informant. You credit the frankly incredible evidence about the “preacher’s handshake.”
<
p>We must stop making excuses for corruption. We cannot allow political loyalties to figures like Turner, or to the good causes he stand for, to tempt us to take morally and politically untenable positions such as the position you are taking.
<
p>I guess that’s a little blunt, but I think this is a really easy question.
<
p>TedF
If investigation and prosecution efforts were directed consistently toward all who are suspected of corruption and if the aggressiveness of such efforts were in correlation to the size and impact of the alleged criminal acts, then you’d have a solid point, TedF. But they aren’t.
I don’t think it’s okay to say: “We should keep this crook in office because we know there are other crooks in office who haven’t been investigated.” I just don’t. It’s simply another way of trying to distract attention from the indisputable fact of Turner’s conviction.
<
p>TedF
…and at some length, as it turn out. Sorry. But I do, ultimately, address your specific question.
<
p>Well, yippee. GRP gets a citation in a Howie Carr piece AND goes front-and-center on BMG, both in the same week! You can just imagine how thrilled I am with the attention. (Howie: “Too bad you joined the Green Rainbow Party, Chuck. Democrats don’t do time. Just ask Patrice Tierney.”)
<
p>So, what Green, foolish enough to leap into this particular breach? Looking around.
<
p>Hmmm. Well, fools rush in….
<
p>I shouldn’t be the one responding to this. I don’t have a clear response, and mine is apt to be clouded with emotion, because I’m bitter. Bitter about
the FBI’s self-serving, vindictive, targeted entrapment operation;
the waste of time and taxpayer money that went into this.
the gloating on the part of so many at watching a good man being taken down;
the sudden outburst of concern for the well-being of the residents of BCC District 7;
the fact that the GRP has some valuable positions on serious stuff such as the wars, but rather than take us on in re issues like that, all too many of you want to take issue with are (relative) molehills like this. (Ehh, sorry for the tone)
<
p>AND …
<
p>bitter about the Chuck-can-do-no-wrong stance adopted by some of his supporters.
bitter about Mr. Turner’s own rants about the press and the Constitution and his non-sequiturs about racism
bitter about Mr. Turner’s choice of successor
…and, yeah–I’m none-too-happy with the circle-the-wagons mentality, either.
<
p>I’ll do it anyway; but in short: I come neither to praise nor to bury Mr. Turner.
<
p>Nor-nota bene!-do I speak for the party here. But-disclaimer–I DO serve in a position of leadership. And I’m going out on a limb here in even expressing my personal opinions, and it won’t surprise me to find daggers unsheathed in my own camp. So be it. But here’s the deal: you can NOT quote me as expressing the official position of the Party, nor as speaking for party members at large, since I don’t even know how they feel, “at large”-we haven’t polled them, and many, I suspect, aren’t really interested in Boston politics and haven’t followed the story. But you ask whether the article on our web page represents the “sentiments” of members and leadership, so I reply as an individual party member who incidentally holds a temporary position of leadership.
<
p>And remember: you asked, not for our thoughts, but for our sentiments.
<
p>Speaking personally, then: I actually don’t find yours to be a very interesting question. (And disagree that’s it’s nearly so simple as you all-too-cavalierly suggest). That’s not at all personal; it’s because, in part, the GRP has more to offer on more substantive issues that I’d delight in debating (you’ll come back at me with, “but isn’t corruption one of your mainstays?” Yes–and I’ll address that below). And in part because, unlike Mssrs. Carr and Fitzpatrick, I haven’t found this to be a very interesting case. I won’t rehash all the details–that’s not what your asking for, and you’re familiar with them, especially if you did read that piece on the GRP web site (which, incidentally, is NOT a statement of party policy, and which was decidedly not vetted by the party–I added a disclaimer to that effect–but which I urge you to read; even just the first few paragraphs, detailing the load of bs used by the FBI to justify their own involvement on the grounds of “interstate commerce” conspiracy-because, you know, the beverages to be sold crossed state lines. For godssake. Visions of Chuck loading up a truck with moonshine somewhere on the outskirts of Brattleboro and running it into Fields Corner under dark of night, revenooers hot on his tail: “I think you’d better call John /,’Cause it don’t look like they’re here/to deliver the mail…” Ehhh. Sorry.).
<
p>Now, I would have found it to be very interesting indeed, were the Bureau’s bloodhounds sniffing down a long trail of suspect scat; were there any pre-existent evidence whatsoever of attempted extortion; had they set out, in good faith, to discover evidence that would have confirmed their documented suspicions of corruption. And had one–ONE!!!!–other person stepped forth since the arrest went down, and claimed that s/he had made a single pay-off, I’d shrug and say: Chuck, ya brought it on yourself. Without hesitation. But there was no smoke, and the FBI set the fire; they were neither establishing a pattern, nor even investigating an incident, of corruption; rather, they sought to corrupt. Those of you who’ve made a career of ravishing virgins will understand perfectly.
<
p>There are more interesting questions. Far more interesting questions:
<
p> 1) why Mr. Turner? I believe most of you who are familiar with his history in regard to the FBI–oh, heck, with his history in general–know the answer to that question, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with a demonstrable history of graft. And
<
p>2) how much taxpayer money was spent (FBI and prosecutorial man-hours, fees paid the wily informant, etc.) to establish that a man would accept a couple of hundred dollars for something he was going to do anyway?). Do the math and tell me this: if you really want to help Mr. Turner’s constituents, was that really the best use of our dollars? The imbalance between outrage at Mr. Turner’s behavior and the shrug over the waste of time, energy, and dollars has me befuddled, at best. Mr. Turner’s district has more pressing problems than determining whether he might be susceptible to an eyebrow-raising campaign contribution. I’ll be blunt-I don’t think most of his detractors give a rat’s ass about whether this process really serves the best interests of District 7. (The sudden and overwhelming concern for the citizens of Roxbury, whose well-being is suddenly put at risk by an unreported donation, is, uh, really touching; The Herald is positively adrench in crocodile tears…).
<
p>3) Why Mr. Turner–and not you? His record was as unblemished as yours is. Why haven’t you been targeted for a probe? And if you’re not an elected official, then, say, your entire slate of town selectmen. Make it town meeting. Why on earth haven’t they been targeted? Because they don’t talk on the phone with freaking Diane Wilkerson? (This is not merely rhetorical: I request you answer this).
<
p>But that’s not what you asked. Your question, artfully constructed as it is so as to leave no wiggle room, means, of course, that I’d simply confirm the built-in bias (GRP irrelevance) were I to evade it. This really IS a fool’s errand, and I ask myself: why go out a damn limb in order to gratify the bleacher seats on BMG?
<
p>Your question is posed in such a way that that no matter how much we belabor the context, no matter the extent to which we try to prove that this was a faux felony and a miscarriage of justice, not to accept the verdict, not to join you in branding Mr. Turner a “felon,” as though, like so many god-%$#ned Democrats, he made a career and a livelihood out of corruption, not to join up with your sanctimonious Greek chorus of damnation, futhers our “irrelevance.” Well, we Greens have a bad habit of playing at sanctimony–so I’m here to give you the satisfaction you crave. SOME of it, anyway, but there’s a point where we we turn off your road and drive down mine.
<
p>SO:
<
p>I’ll agree with you this far: if the GRP refuses, in any forthcoming public statement, to so much as tap Mr. Turner’s wrist, I–personally–believe we’ll render our claims to purity risible. (There. Said it. Happy now?). As for what follows: I feel compelled–reluctantly, because I see little to be gained from it other than offering Mr. Turner’s (and the GRP’s) detractors some sense of smug satisfaction, and adding to his constituents’ pain–to give you your “condemnation,” though I fear it won’t be nearly harsh enough to satisfy you, while any tap whatsoever is
likely to enrage Mr. Turner’s more ardent supporters. Speaking, once again, not in any official capacity, but as a mere party member (of some rank) who is decidedly unhappy with the unjustified targeting of one of our officials; as a citizen of the US, who finds the FBI’s interest and motivation here more than suspect; as a citizen of the Commonwealth, who is deeply dismayed with the wholly “sentimental” approaches to this episode by BOTH camps; and as a Green, disappointed and saddened by Mr. Turner’s conduct over the course of this pathetic, often farcical, and, in the strict classical sense of the term, tragic episode.
<
p>Let me preface what I say, here, however, by noting that I don’t assign Mr. Turner to the same level of hell as “the various Democratic miscreants” to whom you refer (however obliquely, though I like your phrasing; I assume you’re referring in part three Democrats in particular. Who all sat in the same seat. Man, you guys are just brilliant at ferreting out corruption). By which I do not mean that he’s a better man than they are. I’ve rolled my own eyes a-plenty at some of his more outlandish statements and stunts over the years. But Mr. Turner, who has taken on the task of representing the lowest socioeconomic order, the most troubled neighborhoods, deals–dealt, right, damn it, the City Council put an end to that nonsense–every day, and ably, from his self-funded office, with day-to-day problems that, quite frankly, I’m not at all certain most elected officials could–or that, to be blunt, about which most really give a damn.
<
p>That isn’t license for a blanket pardon, nor does it qualify Mr. Turner for the apotheosis some feel he’s achieved. But unlike some of our other favorite (Democratic) poster boys for corruption, Mr. Turner’s history is hardly that of living high on the hog, mixing with the hoi polloi, making sweetheart deals over overpriced entrees. You don’t find many of his constituents making their case at L’Espalier. Sheesh, what he was handed wouldn’t BUY you and your wife dinner at L’Espalier. Nah. Chuck sits and listens to the down-and-out folks who stream into his office, and he tries to get them jobs. Not much glory, much less foie gras terrine and Chateau de la Roulerie, in that, eh?
<
p>And, c’mon–your drawing a moral equivalent with these lifelong scammers and thieves of the people, and Mr. Turner, who sought nothing, is a crock. There’s a universe of distance between soliciting 57k in kickbacks and getting caught–and being offered, sans solicitation, what would have amounted to a perfectly legal campaign contribution had it been handed to someone else, and nabbed. Mr. Turner isn’t Tom Finneran. He’s not Sal DiMasi. Not by a long shot.
<
p>But you want us to hang a good man out to dry as a felon. You want me to say that while I believe that Mr. Turner is (arguably, I grant) the most dedicated, and (arguably) the ablest rep his constituents are likely to find, one who pours his own money INTO serving the most needy among us, for goddsake–that the fact that he fell prey to a sleazy–yes, sleazy–unjustified, and mismanaged sting operation needs must result in his disqualification to serve, where he has served so ably.
<
p>So I look at Mr. Turner today–a man with a record previously untarnished by the slightest taint of corruption whatsoever–a genuinely decent human being with a record that was as unblemished as yours and mine, called a “disgrace,” a “felon,” reduced to banishment and possibly prison–because some %$#@ing %$#@*&$ decided that it would be cute to try to ensnare him, and I really wonder: WTF kind of country do I live in? And what kind of people am I surrounded by, that fill our coliseum and actually rejoice in this spectacle?
<
p>This is like bad reality TV, this thirst for comeuppance. Chuck isn’t being punished because he’s a criminal-he’s being punished by people-even good, solid liberals-who feel that SOME punishment was probably warranted such an outspoken, sometimes embarassing, pain in the ass. “So, maybe this went a bit far–but c’mon, just listen to the guy. You just know he’s bad.” I tell you flat out–I’ve committed worse crimes in my life than has Chuck Turner. But poppin’ a punk kid doesn’t get you the glory that taking down a principled politician does, so the FBI ignored me–and millions of others–to instead go after what was a perfectly innocent man.
<
p>And now–at his lowest point–and, quite possibly the kind of low few among us have ever experienced–what you’ve seen isn’t sufficient? You want me to kick him to curb, to boot? Have you, after all, no decency…..
<
p>There’s your sentiment.
<
p>I’m sure you’re aware of the anguish this has caused Mr. Turner’s supporters, and what I’m trying to get at in what I just wrote is that I think it’s on a deeper and more personal level than, say, all those tears you must have wept over the SHOCKING revelations regarding, say, Messrs. Finneran and DiMasi. This, I can tell you, really hit home. Less so to me, despite my vitriol–I’m relatively new to the Party, and I haven’t worked at all closely with Mr. Turner (though in my various meetings with him, I have been struck by his really democratic spirit, his willingness to take everyone seriously; I literally wince at his public displays, and truly wish that those who know him only via his Chavez-styled oratory could meet him one-on-one; underneath the image is a warm, REAL man). I also have no wish to insult or in any way hurt those who have–seriously–really agonized over this. Frankly, they’ve been hurt enough, and I don’t think it’s the party’s job to pour salt into the wounds inflicted by the FBI–and, yes, damn it, by Mr. Turner himself.
<
p>But I agree with you that not meeting issues head-on does contribute to our irrelevance. And I do not think evasion or justification or going on the offensive is sufficient, nor that circling wagons is the smartest choice politically (I was just a kid in ’74, but even I absorbed that lesson). Better to walk out and expose yourself to the arrows.
<
p>I hope our party does just that. And–to finally get around to your question (whew)–I wish Mr. Turner had as well. I’m not as grief stricken as are many of you with the liquor license end business, a byzantine and politically-charged enough process without having dragged the wily Mr. Wilburn into it. I’ll return to that in a moment nonetheless. Am I unhappy with Mr. Turner’s performance since his arrest, resulting in two additional charges? You bet. I could provide you with a litany of grimace-inducing statements and orations as well a bewildering cacophony of frankly contradictory explanations. He hasn’t made it easy. On anyone, including himself. I was shocked–and that’s saying something–at Mr. Turner’s letter to the Governor, which included some eye-popping statements regarding the First Amendment. Bewildered–actually, I was seriously pissed off–by his speech the other day decrying the United States Constitution as “an illegal document.” These are NOT, thank god, the positions or opinions of the GRP. If they were, I’d be looong gone. Most serious: taken as a whole, Mr. Turner’s statements since his arrest, along with those of his lawyer, make a very weak case for his oft-proclaimed love of truth (yes, that’s the euphemistic version; allow me that grace, at least). I could go on. I won’t. My point is, no, we’re not all wearing freaking blinders.
<
p>So: I plead not guilty to your charge of irrelevance on grounds of willful blindness.
<
p>In regard to the, uh, donation itself. Whether it was legitimate or not is beside the fact to my mind (what it wasn’t was extortion, a charge which I still find utterly bewildering). I could spend hours wading through interstate commerce clauses and OCPF regulations and, perhaps, determine that Mr. Turner’s action was somehow criminal, I suppose. But since I deny, in principle, the validity of “feon,” I WILL explain where I DO think censure IS warranted. But that measn I’m going to recast your call for a repr
imand (or recall) under a different set of standards. Because for all our faults and foibles, one thing–THE one thing-that separates the Green-Rainbow Party from others is our fastidious, downright puritanical, insistence on being wholly clean-not simply abiding by the letter of the law, which I believe most Democrats and, yeah, Republicans do to the best of their ability, but acting in accordance with a “higher law,” if I can put it that way. It’s a badge of honor, to my mind. And you know the price we pay for it (ok, not that most corporations are banging down the door hoping we’ll accept their sacks of cash; not every virgin stirs the blood of even the most notorious rake).
<
p>So I winced at Patrick’s sarcastic charge that to our allegedly ideologically-befuddled minds, “only CORPORATE corruption” constitutes malfeasance–because, he’s right, and you’re right: if we as a Party do not couple any public denunciations of the FBI, prosecutor, and press WITH an impartial critique of the manner in which, this, uh, transaction was handled, we do ourselves a disservice and reinforce that very stereotype. The Green-Rainbow Party cannot afford even the appearance of fiscal impropriety. Accepting money in exchange for favors-even favors done, even legal and ethically licit ones-runs directly contrary to the most fundamental tenet of Green politics. And THAT, in the view of THIS Party “leader” (a status which could change upon the morrow thanks to this) includes “here’s fifty, take the wife to dinner,” as well as monies exchanged via, the, umm, “preacher’s handshake” (god help us). It’s not a question of juridicial guilt; it’s a matter of that higher standard to which Green candidates and elected officials adhere. Never mind the technical illegality, with its extremely troubling context(s): it’s the basic impropriety of the exchange, which SHOULD be obvious on the face of it to any Green, that troubles me; and it’s on THAT count that I’d submit that the Party might admonish Mr.Turner.
<
p>Our rigorous critique of corruption on the part of our rivals demands no less. And if and when something like that happens: you admit it-you do not mislead the authorities, and your devoted supporters, thereby creating additional trouble for yourself and your friends; you take your hit; you apologize to your constituents and your fellow party members. You do not gad about referring to yourself as a “paragon of virtue.”
<
p>(And if you do come clean, do apologize… you just might get yourself one of those second acts. Just ask Eliot Spitzer. Or Tom Finneran. Of course , hosting TV and radio talk shows isn’t the same as being in the game. But it beats being out in the cold).
<
p>So, here ya go, Ted: in his dealings with Mr. Lilburn, I personally believe that Mr. Turner let his party down, and that THIS point needs to be touched upon as part of any ensuing statement. Mr. Turner failed to adhere to standards which really aren’t too hard to follow if you are in fact committed to them. Mr. Turner was also asked (two days ago, during a radio interview) whether he has any remorse, would have done anything differently. His hudibrastic response: “no.” I’d call upon Mr. Turner to admit to a degree of culpability in this matter, as unethical (under Green standards) if not felonious-under-the-circumstances, and, perhaps, to show some consequent remorse-one can damn the process and simultaneously demonstrate some humility.
<
p>So you see, a Green can dispute the validity and justice of the felony charges, and refuse to accede to your demands ii that regard; yet still acquiesce to a call for a public reprimand from the Green Party. But I won’t be the one to call for it. Because at the end of the day, I’m a human being. And I’m damned if I’m going to lay one more sorrow at that man’s doorstep.
<
p>I state all of the above-my condemnation of the FBI, and my public disappointment with Mr. Turner’s actions and ensuing statements, under the rubric of Green standards, -without equivocation. In other words, you asked for some Green response; a Green, this Green’s, response is that Mr. Turner is guilty of an infraction under the GRP standards you’re all familiar with.
<
p>But I’ll not sanction his recall under the felony conviction. I’ll reconsider that, Ted, after the FBI creates a scenario under which they attempt to ensnare you in some ruse; and Deval Patrick; and Michael Ross. I doubt that you or the latter two are in any wise corrupt; likewise, I believe that any smart secret police team could frame any of you and nail you to a cross similar to the one on which they’ve hung Chuck Turner. No? Like me, you’d probably shrink from a wad of cash. But maybe, after one too many, when some Scarlet Johannsen look-alike sidles up against you; maybe, in some moment of weakness, in a setting uniquely crafted for you. And maybe it’s not the carrot. Maybe it’s the threat of the stick. You, I daresay, haven’t been tested by the feds. Neither, most likely, have your town Selectmen, nor your state reps. Here’s the question you should be asking: Why the hell not? Why Chuck-and not you? Not them? Would you in fact favor stinging every elected and appointed official in the state …or is profiling okay?
<
p>As for a statement censuring one of our own, independent of additional context? No. I’m not going to put Mr. Turner through another trial. The feds, the state, the city, the media, and public opinion outside of Mr. Turner’s district have done enough. I firmly believe that the targeted and utterly unprovoked entrapment of Mr. Turner was far more injurious to our ideals of justice-not to mention to his constituents -than was Mr. Turner’s post facto acceptance of two hundred dollars. So, yes, this Green is willing to decry some of his actions and his statements; but only as part of a much larger and more tragic story. One in which you, too, have now played your own small, proud part.
<
p>You, and me, and BMG; and Howie and Joe; and Sullivan and Ross; and Chuck and Ron and Wilson, and Adrian and Joan. I don’t think any of us are coming up smelling like roses, myself.
<
p>And I’m less confident in agreeing you with that the Party should demand-well, should have demanded– that Mr. Turner resign or be stripped of his seat on City Council. It’s easy to say “convicted felon” and leave it at that (on these grounds, Mr. Turner is inadmissible, but O. J. Simpson-prior to that little dust-up in Vegas, anyway-would be perfectly suitable), but I do think it’s essential to keep the overall context, much of which was ignored and unreported in our papers of record, front and center. I don’t like playing the victim card-and I believe the GRP plays it too often-but I honestly believe that in this case, prosecution really was the equivalent of persecution. I would have preferred that the matter of Chuck’s seat have been left up to the residents of District 7. (Is there a process for a recall or vote of confidence under these circumstances?)
<
p>And it kinda sucks, doesn’t it, that we’ve heard, for two years, and ad nauseum, from everyone and their mother … except the people of District 7? Except once, of course-when, following his arrest, they RE-ELECTED Chuck Turner. They made their opinion clear. But, screw that–we all know better than they do what’s best for them, don’t we?
<
p>It has given me no pleasure whatsoever to have written a single word that appears above. And re-reading this (I put you through it, so I’m suffering alongside you), I’m unhappy-I prefer taking a strong, unequivocal stand, even where I end up proved being entirely wrong–known for it, actually; I rarely shy from rushing in like a damn fool where angels fear to tread, but there are layers and layers in this case: Mr. Turner’s history as a thorn-in-the-flesh, the FBI’s unhappy history of targeting black “radicals,” the inability of either the prosecution or defense to even figure out how much money might have changed hands, Mr. Turner’s own less-than-compelling explanations, evasions, and retorts-that make it impossible for me to defend Mr. Turner to the extent that his sup
porters have wanted me to, which requires a kind of willfull blindness; or to damn him with the vehemence you’re asking for.
<
p>In other words, accept what I’ve said, if you will, as the reaction of a bitter and unconvinced (either way) party member; I’m honestly not trying to walk some political tightrope here, and I’m pretty sure my own statement will satisfy no one and probably piss off more than a few who aren’t already unhappy with me. I’d be safer demanding Chuck get either life in prison or an immediate and full reprieve, make at least half the circus happy. So it goes.
<
p>If any of you actually waded through this, apologies for the length, and for the outbursts, and thanks to BMG for the opportunity to make this case. Ted, I know I got snarky with you, but I actually believe you’re very serious about the good-goo business; I just can’t help but feel, sometimes, that maybe a hint of compassion ought to temper our rigid, high-minded demand for perfect justice.
<
p>E.g.,
<
p>Chuck Turner did NOT deserve to have this happen to him. Nor do you. Nor did Jean Valjean (hey, Chuck hasn’t compared himself to him yet, has he?). Show a little human heart. Run afoul of a pissed-off secret policeman someday, and you may find you wish you had.
You said it all. And you put you real name to it, while most of the sanctimonious pontificators of the blogosphere e-hide.
<
p>TedF, I think your reply to me is not sincere but disingenuous, since you chose to ignore what I said about the crux of the matter: that, by all evidence, the passing of money WAS NOT A BRIBE. Just because the jury saw money being passed and SAID it was bribery doesn’t mean it WAS bribery, nor extortion, in the same way that killing someone unintentionally is not murder but manslaughter; the death is indisputable, but the culpability is very different. It was not a bribe not because Turner “wasn’t able to deliver,” but because he never offered to deliver. You know as well as I do that juries make mistakes (or did you think O.J. Simpson was innocent?) — especially when judges’ instructions narrow their options for consideration. So your reliance on the “convicted felon” branding is not as firmly grounded as you pretend.
<
p>I am not saying this to defend or excuse Turner; I gave my case analysis earlier. But I have to say that in my seventeen years of desperate efforts to get some decent governance out of City Hall, I found that Turner, warts and all, was one of the scant handful of electeds who could be counted on to do something good (like, providing an affidavit supporting a citizens’ Open Meeting Law suit against the Council, which I bet was close to the top reason his long-term colleagues, Ross, Feeney and Murphy, were delighted to throw him out while they, found guilty on all 11 violations (for 18 months of secret meetings that ended up perpetuated the BRA’s eminent domain powers, which have and will cost Boston billions of dollars), remained smugly in their seats), and who have not gravely and repeatedly cheated and betrayed the people of Boston. I am completely mystified about why, in the ethical cesspools of our city and state governments, this person alone should have been targeted for a test of moral purity while named conspirators went untouched (after all, if meting out justice is meant to deter wrongdoing, what was to be accomplished by this prioritization of public-resource investment?), and why the outpouring of venom and hate in this case surpasses anything I’ve seen for the cavalcade of merciless political traitors who for decades have have disgraced those hallowed halls.
<
p>Maybe it’s the beard.
Well, surely if Turner believed that there were grounds to argue that the jury’s verdict was unfounded, he would have appealed, right?
<
p>Of course, that didn’t happen, and I think the reason is that most everyone who followed the trial and Turner’s testimony in particular found his story not credible. You’re entitled not to share that view, of course.
<
p>TedF
Mike, I appreciate your answer, particularly because you post under your own name and you seem to think that your post is going to cause you some grief in GRP circles.
<
p>Let me make a few points:
<
p>1. You have come the closest so far to what I think is an acceptable answer to the question. I think it’s completely okay to question the FBI’s investigative priorities, as you have, though I don’t think that’s particularly relevant to how we should react to Turner. On the other hand, I think your talk about entrapment and a miscarriage of justice are wide of the mark, given the outcome of the trial. Having followed it from a distance, it seems to me that the verdict was clearly proper and that in any event, Turner himself has essentially waived any challenge to it by failing to appeal. I wish you could get yourself to adopt what to me is a simple, bright-line rule: “no convicted felons in office, particularly if the crime relates to their integrity in office.”
<
p>2. Regarding entrapment, I think, as I wrote when the whole mess began, that it may be a legal defense but it can never be a political defense. Saying, “the FBI sting operation led me to take a bribe that I would never have taken had it not been for the FBI” may keep you out of jail, but in my view you’re still disqualified politically from office.
<
p>3. I appreciate what you say about compassion, and I have compassion for Turner. I am not sure he should go to jail given the small amount of the bribe (though his ridiculous testimony will make it hard, in my opinion, for the judge to refuse to order some jail time). I am sorry for him. But no one has a right to public office. We need to be ruthless with our public officials when they are corrupt, at least to the extent of removing them from office. This is the view I took during the Sen. Gallucio affair, and there were some Democrats who took the view you take, whom I criticized.
<
p>4. You specifically ask me to answer why Turner was targeted instead of me (me? I’m not a public official) or other public officials. As I’ve already said, I think that point is irrelevant, but my understanding is that his name came up in the course of the Wilkerson investigation, and the FBI pursued it.
<
p>TedF