U.S. attorney’s letter was inappropriate
Heath Haussamen
“Hi. I’m not going to file criminal charges against your clients at this time, even though my investigation revealed wrongdoing. Know that I’m watching your clients. There are other investigations pending, and if circumstances warrant, I might restart this one as well.”
Though that’s not a direct quote, that’s essentially what U.S. Attorney Greg Fouratt wrote on Thursday in a letter to lawyers representing Gov. Bill Richardson and other potential defendants in the investigation into allegations of pay to play involving CDR Financial Products.
It was a highly combative letter that was inappropriate. Let me explain.
Whatever the reason charges weren’t filed, we live in a system in which people are innocent until proven guilty. The United States opted to not file charges against Richardson and others in this case and closed it. So, from a legal standpoint, Richardson and others are innocent, regardless of what Fouratt says.
That should be the end of the story, unless Fouratt wants to allege something about the motives behind the decision by his bosses in Washington to put an end to the case (if the decision was made in Washington, which is a lingering question), or unless he comes across new evidence in the future that leads to the reopening of the case.
Instead, we have the top federal law enforcement officer in New Mexico publicly alleging wrongdoing in this case while simultaneously informing those under investigation that he has no intention, at least at this time, of trying to prove in a court of law that such wrongdoing occurred.
Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, called Fouratt’s letter “stupid” in an interview with The Associated Press. That’s because, according to the article, “it makes allegations of corruption after the case is over.”
“That letter is an outrage and the U.S. attorney who wrote it should be fired. The case is closed. If he had charges, bring them. Otherwise, he should shut up. He’s being a politician now, not a prosecutor,” the news service quoted diGenova as saying.
The court of law versus the court of public opinion
Some will balk at me accusing someone else of not being fair to Richardson. I spend a great deal of time heavily scrutinizing the actions of the governor and his associates. I call him out when his actions create the appearance of impropriety, and I plan to continue doing that. I’m currently blacklisted by the governor’s office.
But I’ve been careful in the past to not accuse Richardson of actual wrongdoing. When asked during interviews with other media outlets, I’ve always said I don’t know if a crime was committed.
I think Richardson and his staffers have tried to toe the line — and sometimes leaned so far over it they almost fell over — in their efforts to raise money. Richardson was launching a presidential bid from a small state. He worked hard to raise every dollar possible.
CDR is one of the best examples of how those efforts have created an appearance of impropriety. The company gave $110,000 to two Richardson political action committees and his 2006 re-election campaign and won a state contract that paid almost $1.5 million — and the actual contract has vanished, if it ever physically existed in the first place.
But an appearance of impropriety doesn’t mean actual impropriety existed. Was there a handshake, a head nod, a handwritten note on a napkin through which Richardson or someone close to him agreed to give CDR the contract in exchange for contributions? I’ve never seen proof that there was. And the U.S. attorney doesn’t plan to try to prove that there was such an agreement in this case.
Fouratt’s job is to prove guilt in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion. Apparently, he needs to be reminded of that.
5 Comments
Leave a Response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Heath I am shocked that you think the comments in the letter are bad! The decsion was made in DC not in NM and that is room enough for sour grapes. The letter is not over the top it states the facts as the US Attorney sees them, period.
Maybe you should put a little effort into finding out why there is no prosecution of these guys? They all lawyered up real fast and the investigation went on for some time, maybe they punted becasue thanks to folks like Smiley and Rebecca there is plenty of low hanging fruit to actually put behind bars with other notable Democrats in NM Like Manny.
I disagree Heath, the U.S. Attorney is entitled to his opinion, would you have criticized Iglasias (a folk hero to you media types) if he had said the same thing? Having been involved in grand juries, I suspect the grand jurors also have their opinions in this case, which we will never know due to poltical pressure and more I suspect. We have very little facts to do on, as the government power in DC (Holder and Obama) will not let us know what really happened, there is no transparency from this administration, like the last. But judging from the U.S. Attorney’s response, he thought he had ample evidence to proceed, and I also suspect sealed indictments were handed down from the GJ, but left sealed when Holder and Obama quashed them. Now if what I suspect is true, would you feel the same way?
I agree with you Heath. If the governmen felt it could not prosecute Richardson for these accusations, then it is for good legal cause–THEY HAVE NO REAL CASE. To continue to try to assert that the defendants are guilty is reprehensible under our system of law.
While it is disgusting how many palms get greased in the process of doing business in our state, Richardson is not the first person to brush up against that fine line between legal and illegal, nor will he be the last. It’s just so much fun for his enemies to pretend that he somehow is the originator of these practices, mostly because it helps Republicans sully the name of all Democrats in the process. I still hold that it is our fault as citizens not to demand ethics and other reforms to keep this kind of activity from becoming just another routine part of government in New Mexico. But don’t fool yourselves that this is just a Democratic problem– Tom Delay and his little fiefdom of corruption was right next door to us for years, taking outright bribes from Abramoff and anyone else for golf trips to Scotland or to put his wife on the payroll of a “charity” for six figures.
How quickly the public forgets the Bush Admninistration’s abuse of the Justice Department during the US Attorney’s scandal. Our former President allowed the replacement of career US Attorney’s in order to pursue politically based investigations of Democrats, not because they have any more propensity to do wrong in this country, but because they were attempting to sway the voters into creating a “permanent Republican majority”. Who was one of the most vocal and famous of these replaced US Attorneys? David Iglesias, a genuinely decent and principled career prosecutor (who was the inspiration for Tom Cruise’s character in “A Few Good Men”), who refused to allow political demands color criminal investigations. He lost his job and was replaced by someone hand-picked by Karl Rove–that’s no longer just an allegation, either, as we have memos and other evidence proving it did occur. Now this new US Attorney’s office decided to continue to CYA their own behind/and or continue to try to destroy Richardson’s future prospects in government. Until President Obama rectifies that past politicization of the Justice Department, I will have a VERY skeptical mindset regarding investigations against political figures, especially of the Democratic party.
I think that you are doing injustice by paraphrasing what the US Attorney’s letter says. Reading the letter myself I can see why it was written the way it is. The US Attorney’s office has to officially notify the “potential defendants,” as you refer to them, that they will not charge them at this time. I think it would be important to note that they are not exonerated– otherwise you know that the letter would hit the press declaring “US ATTORNEY: GOVERNOR FREE OF WRONGDOING!” It would be only fair to the people in question to let them know that charges could still be made later on. I would think that the US Attorneys office would do this for any persons who they are investigating. Otherwise, if they decide to charge again later, the defendants would protest that they were cleared earlier and that it is unfair to bring charges again.
Heath why would you think for one moment that a U S Attorney has only one job and that is to try the case in court, when all the District Attorney’s in the country go after the guilty in the media at all times? This is not done usually by letterr but by innuendo before the T V cameras. In this case, I would think the man was still doing his job, as all District Attorney’s have done when they did not have sufficient eveidence to try a case before the public at that time.
Lokk at the way they went after the mafia in New York, or any other high crime official. What makes the case of Bill Richardson different, just because it is not considered a heinous crime? This is usually done in the hopes that the accused will make some slip that will give the investigators a toe hold to find more concrete evidence. Besides, the U S Attorney has the right to pursue the case further if he finds mitigating circumstances to support such a filing.