Today Facebook is abuzz about a scathing Huffington Post article that focuses on US Atty Carmen Ortiz and her penchant for going after good guys to generate headlines for herself while destroying the reputations of others.
WBZ Jon Keller is the only media guy who has spoken on this that I am aware of…sad to say, the Boston Globe and even the Herald have been silent and some would say complicit by advancing the US Atty’s agenda in their “news” coverage because they benefit from (illegal) leaks from her staff to create stories that sell papers. (US Atty’s and Asst. Attys take an oath to uphold the law…to discuss an ongoing investigation with anyone outside… i.e. press… is illegal activity. When a reporter notes in an accusatory story that the source “close to the investigation” “asked for anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case” that is code for : US Atty office breaking the law by leaking info to get the case pre-tried in the press.)
US Atty. Ortiz’ current victims/targets are Tim Sullivan and Ken Brissette at Boston City Hall. But, as this article points out, they are not the first and will not be the last to be unfairly indicted unless someone finally puts the brakes on this kind of activity.
I hope all BMGers will read the article linked here.
I would cut and paste it here but I am not sure about the BMG rules about that…THANKS
That’s not what happened, that’s horseshit. These guys have a story, lying is not going to help them it just makes people dismiss them as morons.
She hounded Aaron Swartz to death and her larger political career is dead because of that. She’s evidently learned nothing since then.
I also dislike the fact that the US Attorney went strongly after internet activist Aaron Swartz, but the real test was not their initial mistake, but how they responded to the public opinion which came strongly in support of Swartz, through multiple channels – news reports, editorials, many of them in the Boston Globe. To which the prosecutors did respond with several offers for plea bargaining.
It is unfortunate that Swartz took his life, and seems to have been battling depression – and that the prosecutors did not take that into account. Incidentally, the Boston Globe is running a new Spotlight series about mental health in the state – pointing to a large problem we have with law enforcement unprepared to deal with incidents of depression and suicide in the state.
The Swartz story reflects a US Attorney torn in the middle – between having to enforce draconian federal copyright laws, and a public opinion which quasi-unanimously pressed for lenience towards Swartz.
The problem, really, was and continues to be the strict copyright laws – which, once on the books, have to be enforced, even in the Swartz case. An ineffectual US Congress did nothing to change these laws in wake of the internet activist’s untimely death.
prosecutorial discretion. The law allowed her to do it, but it didn’t compel her to do so.
Since she the Schwartz case is inexcusable, but I actually think there is more corruption with Marty and his people than we know. Maura unfortunately won’t touch it, and it’s unlikely the council will serve as a check so the USA is the last resort. Frankly there are similar dynamics to Chicago during the Daley II years.
Some of the assertions seem extreme: Ortiz is anti-progressive for indicting Marty Walsh’s union people. I’m a union guy, but I’m not fond of extortion (not saying that’s what happened).
Some money quotes from Nancy Gertner:
“There were leaks about the chief of probation where the chief was hiring the friends and daughters of judges and politicians. That is American politics and not a crime,” said Gertner.
On the DeLeo leak–“This has been, in my view, one of the leakiest offices I have ever seen,” Gertner said.
And this paragraph from a U.S judge:
I think that one’s perspective on this depends on how you view “union labor”.
If you view it as an amorphous concept, something that brings better working conditions for workers, something that raises salaries, then there is absolutely no corruption here: there is simply a policy on the part of the city to require permitted events to use union labor, similar to if they required people to recycle their trash or to keep noise down.
If you view union labor as inherently wasteful and corrupt, then you definitely see this as corruption. You view Sullivan and Brissette as somehow personally benefiting because “their guys” – meaning any unions – benefited. You view this as unnecessary and wasteful spending, and the rationale for it the personal enrichment of some people at the expense of others.
I think it is very dangerous to set the precedent that “criminal extortion” need not benefit someone directly (or even indirectly) in order for it to be extortion.
I’m not so impressed with HuffPo’s journalism on this one. That being said, I’m also skeptical of this case being brought by Ortiz. And what was in it for the two aides? Not like they were enriching themselves at the public trough — at worst they had to be following orders from above, i.e. The mayor. And if you don’t have enough for a case against him, well, what have you got except for penny-ante harassment of a couple of guys who dared take a job in government?
I think the HuffPost article, and much of the negative press gives her way too much credit. Yes, she’s ultimately responsible for the cases her office brings, and she should be held responsible. No question. But, she’s hapless, not very bright, and wasn’t a very good AUSA. She was promoted from a line assistant to the top job, because of her legitimately compelling life story (which shouldn’t be diminished). The job of the US Attorney is complex and tricky. AUSA’s and investigators from multiple agencies work for long periods of time (years, sometimes) to build cases. Those AUSA’s and investigators get attached to those cases, because of the time, effort and resources that they commit. It takes an incredibly savvy operator, with deep knowledge of the law, and compelling understanding of prosecutorial discretion, to look those AUSAs and investigators in the eye, and say “I have read the prosecution memo you submitted, you have done good and important work here, but I will not bring this case because in my discretion, going forward, I think that the resources of this office will be better spent on other matters. Again, good job, and I understand that you may be disappointed with my decision.” That’s what should have been said with Schwartz, the secretary in homeland security and (arguably) with the jack-asses in City Hall who shook down Boston Calling, in order to benefit unions, who had no business being included on the Boston Calling payroll, and probably a number of other cases. Bottom line, Carmen Ortiz isn’t that person. She has neither the gravitas, nor the respect of the other AUSAs and investigators to pull that off and move forward. I think that Keller, and HuffPost don’t get what is really going on here. She’s not evil, or even a bad person, she’s just not good at her job, and when your job is US attorney, and you’re in over your head, the results can be devastating.