If you’re a fan of abrupt transformations, skip the summer blockbuster superhero movies and instead listen to Maura Healey’s July 6 interview on WBUR.
She starts out like Wonder Woman, railing (justifiably, in my view) against Betsy Devos. But about two thirds of the way through the interview, Jill Kaufman asked a question that made all of Healey’s superpowers fall away, including the power to speak in complete sentences.
Kaufman asked Healey about the AG’s office prosecutorial misconduct. A week before, Judge Richard Carey ruled that the AG’s office withheld and covered up evidence that Sonja Farak, working for the state, had been using the drugs she was supposed to be testing.
Seven cases were dismissed because of the tainted evidence. That may be just of the tip of the iceberg. The AG’s office knew that Farak had been doing this for years, but lied about it. According to Jared Olanoff, one of the defense attorneys, it is impossible to count the number of years people spent in prison as a result.
Healey has been “reviewing” the case ever since she’s been in office. In her interview with Kaufman, she said that this was “from the previous administration”. Has she talked to Martha Coakley? Kaufman asked. A long pause, then “No”. Will she talk with Coakley? “No.”
Healey might call what she is doing reviewing. I call it stone walling.
Judge Carey’s ruling was discussed June 28 on Radio Boston. You can find it by googling “Farak, WBUR.” I apologize that I am still learning to embed links in my posts.
Sadly, for all her many strengths, I fear that Ms. Healey is continuing the hear-no-evil see-no-evil culture her predecessor created towards egregious misconduct of state labs.
These kinds of things have been happening for decades. We know about the worst cases — and we see how little interest the AG (or any other state agency) shows in correcting the issue.
Massachusetts is a shining star of industry and academic labs and biopharmaceutical production facilities. We know the processes, testing, and QA disciplines needed to detect and stop this misconduct.
The question is why we don’t do so.
I can confidently say that Healey is handling this in a way that she genuinely thinks is best and is in no way deliberately perpetrating a cover-up. Please be careful when using that term as it connotes some very nefarious activities in our governments over the years.
Based on what? Have you listened to the two reports on WBUR? I used the term cover up because the facts support that conclusion.
Granted this may not be the most scientific or objective way to put it, but she has always struck me as a person of impeccable integrity, even when I supported the other candidate in the primary. She is in office for all the right reasons and has passed on suggestions she reach higher. She is ably representing the Commonwealth on a whole host of issues and as someone who rarely gets enthusiastic (though certainly supportive when appropriate) about incumbent re-election bids, she is one of two exceptions this year for me (the other being Senator Warren). I suppose it’s possible she has a bit of a blind spot on this matter if she inherited it from her mentor, but “cover-up” evokes images of Watergate and an abuse of government power to deliberately make sure wrongdoing isn’t exposed, and I don’t see even that accusation here (stonewalling is not the same by a long shot), let alone evidence.
Feel free to choose some other term besides “cover-up” — “bit of a blind spot” is not nearly accurate.
Here is what the judge said (emphasis mnine):
“Intentional and deceptive”. That’s not “a bit of a blind spot”.
Just so we’re clear about the scope of the issue, please consider this (from the masslive piece):
Let’s not forget Annie Dookhan — 21,587 explicitly tainted cases, more than 24,000 total. Whether “a bit of a blind spot” or just plain cover-up, prosecutors surely knew that Ms. Dookhan was mishandling evidence and said nothing.
The Attorney General is, rightly or wrongly, viewed as the person responsible for ensuring that Massachusetts prosecutors do not defraud the courts and abuse the innocent. Each and every one of us is put at risk when we allow prosecutors to ravage defendants with egregiously counterfeit “evidence” like this.
Whatever it is we call it, a grave injustice has been done. No matter how much we like and admire Ms. Healey (I share your enthusiasm for her, having met her several times myself), she has a job to do and she MUST do it.
The culture of malfeasance that seems to pollute our prosecutors MUST be stopped.
It does sound like she needs to address the actions of a couple of assistant AGs and I appreciate your posting the judge’s quote. Keep in mind with my slow computer I often don’t have the patience to follow links and thus only go by the BMG diary itself, which in this case referred at most to sins of omission rather than sins of commission (and I tend to be much more forgiving of the former).
Here are some other excerpts from the masslive piece (emphasis mine):
Note that the attorney used the phrase “cover-up”.
OK, but wow does that not sound like the Maura Healey I thought I knew. This is after all an attorney on one side of the case rather than someone impartial, and given the timeline I wonder if in some cases “the Attorney General” refers to Coakley rather than Healey. I’m really not trying to troll or be obtuse here, but when an accusation flies in the face of all reputation I get very picky about evidence, maybe in part because I have been on the receiving end of such myself and wouldn’t wish that treatment on anyone.
At the suggestion of the editor, I listened to the full interview. I came away with a feeling somewhere in the middle.
I think that the thread-starter rather strongly mis-states her response. I did not hear Ms. Healey “stone-walling”. Here’s what I heard instead:
– Ms. Healey is committed to ensuring that the state avoid recurrences of such behavior
– Ms. Healey does not see any need to or value in contacting Ms. Coakley about this matter
– Ms. Healey interprets the judge’s commentary in a VERY narrow context
While I would like to see Ms. Healey be more proactive towards preventing such abuses (see my comment below), I have no issues her responses in this interview.
I come away agreeing with you that this entire thread distorts what she actually did and did not say.
You can just paste the link, better than nothing.
http://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2017/07/06/maura-healey-devos
Background article on Judge Carey excoriating the AGO’s office.
Thanks.
Here’s another piece covering the same episode — this one is not behind the Boston Globe’s paywall.
OK, now I’m annoyed at this whole diary. I did just go ahead and follow the link above, which is the first time I realized the two assistant AGs at the center of this story are FORMER enough that they left in 2014 while Coakley was still AG. The only reference to Healey in the article is saying through a spokesperson that she is reviewing and will have no further comment at this time. That is exactly the appropriate response until more info is available or the case is ultimately resolved, so shame on the diarist for suggesting that Healey herself is actively engaged in a cover-up!
Was the last paragraph of the thread-starter unclear?
I expect an Attorney General to say something like “While we are still reviewing the facts of this case and therefore cannot comment on the specifics, let me say categorically that such betrayals of the public trust are unacceptable and that my office will do whatever is necessary to ensure that they are not repeated”.
Well, she pretty much said that in the interview. Bob G didn’t transcribe everything she said.
The question is whether one thinks she’s had enough time to review; and then whether she’s obligated; and then willing to pursue the matter further at the AGO’s office.
Indeed, she did say something very much along the lines of my suggestion. I’m disappointed in the characterization of her comments in the thread-starter.
I would still like her to further than the she already has. The specific question that I’d like her (and her successors) to answer is something along the lines of “What specific steps and procedures has your office taken to ensure that these failures do not recur”.
No. When she was asked whether there was a problem, she answered “Not at all. ” And when she was asked about her own knowledge, she did not answer.
I would refer you to Tom’s comments, be he seems to be trolling himself.
You should subscribe and pay the Globe. 😉
I’ll reconsider my decision after Mr. Henry sells the rag to somebody else, if that ever happens. Perhaps Mr. Bezos will step into the void..
Healey’s actions should be considered with the following two things in mind.
First, as I said in my post,consider the part of the interview where she comes down on Devos like a ton of bricks for the delays caused by the education department.
Second, and this is much more important, the victims of Healey’s foot dragging have to deal with unjustified criminal records or are in jail.
I still think you materially distorted her position. She didn’t stonewall, she just didn’t take the bait of a leading question regarding Ms. Coakley.
I just don’t see the “foot-dragging” you refer to. The judge’s decision was issued Monday, 26-Jun-2017. It’s only two weeks later, with a holiday in the middle. After all, you only posted your diary yesterday — were you stonewalling as well?
The foot dragging did not start at the WBUR interview, nor was it limited to her answers there.
It started when the case first came to light, and it includes the conduct of the AG’s office.