Sunday, October 22nd, 2006...9:39 pm
US Attorney Office Playing Politics With an Indictment?
This has already made an appearance on a couple of other blogs. I actually had this yesterday but, silly me, I wanted to confirm it first. This means I didn’t get to break the story.
Why must I insist on being ethical?
Here is the story that is going around. The US Attorney’s office has information that Rick Renzi told someone that he would only introduce legislation for a land swap if that legislation included land that belonged to a business partner of his. The New Times ran a detailed piece on the land deal but was unaware that the US Attorney’s office was actually ready to indict Renzi for soliciting a bribe.
The allegation that is being discussed in political and press circles up in Phoenix is that Paul Charlton, a Bush appointee, is sitting on the indictment until after the election. It would be hard to keep a lid on this thing now with this much buzz about it.
If this is true, it looks like one carpetbagger’s political career is over.
9 Comments
October 23rd, 2006 at 2:57 am
While I hope this is true (it’s massively juicy in so many ways), I have many doubts. I’ve contacted the AP report who is supposedly the source for this and am awaiting a response. The ultimate source for the leak is supposed to be a former staffer in Renzi’s office (which doesn’t seem likely that anyone other than a senior staffer would have sufficient access to know any of this).
In order for any federal indictment to be “sat on” it must be sealed by the presiding judge of the federal Grand Jury. The reason to do that is that the prosecutor would be in negotiations with the target to cooperate in the investigation or turn state’s evidence. A prosecutor can’t just “sit on” an indictment any other way, except by timing the submission of the evidence to the Grand Jury in the first place.
The FBI has allegedly interviewed Renzi (again, according to the AP reporter and the former staffer source, I assume). So far as I can determine there has been no confirmation or comment of any of this from the US Attorney’s office, the FBI, or anyone else. I’ve also heard that there is an actual recording of Renzi suggesting a bribe for his support of the Sandlin swap from a warranted wiretap. The idea of the FBI tapping a GOP Congressman’s office seems, well, unlikely.
Personally, I will not be at all surprised if this turns out to be complete bunk (which is why I haven’t written about it on my blog yet). I find the credibility of a US Attorney breaking the law to protect Renzi absurd (even if the US Attorney is appointed by W). I find the idea that the US Attorney would seal the indictment to cut a deal with Renzi on a public corruption case also absurd. The focus of any possible corruption charges would be none other than Renzi. His cooperation really wouldn’t be required, so there’s no point in sealing anything. And sealing the indictment under pretense of potential cooperation to keep it under wraps would be highly unethical at best, purjury at worst. No judge would tolerate it.
So, overall, I find the story only barely plausible in its broadest outlines (there’s a sealed indictment against Renzi for corruption). In its specific details, I find it ranging from outlandish to completely farcical. If there is a grain of truth to this rumor, it’s a small one.
October 23rd, 2006 at 6:58 am
Michael -
I found out about this Saturday afternoon, but I sat on it until I spoke to a couple of people who know a heck of a more about this than I do. I didn’t speak to an AP reporter.
October 23rd, 2006 at 11:35 am
Hmm, I just got a hit on my site from usdoj.gov. They’re reading up on Renzi. Are you guys getting the same?
Note — this doesn’t necessarily mean anything.
October 23rd, 2006 at 1:05 pm
I always wait until I know– i.e. something is in the news or I otherwise have personal knowlege before I comment on it. This means I won’t ever get a ’scoop.’ So what? Despite a few well publicized scoops by bloggers, more often bloggers jump the gun and get embarrassed when what they are speculating on doesn’t pan out (think Leonard what was his name at truthout.org)
I posted on the New Times story because there was a media link but despite all the good stuff I do get to post on Renzi (i.e. how to use google to prove his last ad is a lie) I have no information that this one has been verified yet, and until I do, I won’t post it.
As for Charlton, I have respect for the guy (whether he was a Bush appointee or not). I think the criminal justice system works at its own pace and it is no more true that he is sitting on an indictment than the ridiculous charges made by the right are that somehow Democrats got the FBI to raid Curt Weldon’s daughter’s house last week.
October 23rd, 2006 at 3:30 pm
If this is true, it looks like one carpetbagger’s political career is over... and is replaced with a carpetbagger who hasn’t traveled as far (VA v. OH). An improvement, sure, but still a look way to go.
Anyhoo…
I’m with Michael. I seriously doubt there is much if any truth to this. If Charlton is sitting on an indictment, he’s going to have speedy trial problems. I don’t give much credence to Charlton being a Bush appointee meaning he is doing Dubya’s partisan bidding. To do so would require the same assumption about his predecessor Janet, n’est pas? Unlike Janet and Jose whathisname, Charlton was a non-pol career AUSA before being promoted to the top job. It may just be my own personal bias, but I put more faith in the career prosecutors than the pols
October 23rd, 2006 at 9:41 pm
FYI–there is no speedy trial issue here. First of all, the right to a speedy trial is held by the Defendant (who can and usually does waive that right; time is often on the Defendant’s side).
Second, there is no Defendant until there is an indictment. Speedy trial rights do no attach until an indictment is handed down.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:39 am
FYI - according to this rumor an indictment has already been issued which means the clock is already ticking unless the feds have already obtained an agreement from Renzi to waive that right. That’s why Michael said a prosecutor can’t just sit on an indictment.
But I can see where you would be confused Chris since the rumor - as posted by lofty donkey - is inconsistent and remains unsourced.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
[…] Not that I would know anything about that. […]
February 24th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Well, Tedski, history has vindicated you -
Leave a Reply