( - promoted by jmelli)
Regularly defenders of US Attorney Chris Christie point to his convictions, his conviction rate or that he has nailed Republicans to counter our argument that his office's actions have influenced elections. Those are fine arguments, but ultimately they are just straw men that doesn't apply to our real argument.
We are not saying that Christie is wrongly convicting anyone. We are not saying that Christie is cutting off investigations when he finds dirty Republicans. We are not saying that Christie should not be convicting the Wayne Bryants, Craig Calloways, John Lynch's or other Democrats he's nailed. Frankly, we kind of like that.
What we are saying is that the timing of subpoenas, the publicity for investigations and Christie's own statewide speaking tours are having a positive influence on future electoral prospects for himself and the Republican party, and a negative influence on the prospects for Democrats.
We can argue over whether this is intentional, or a natural outgrowth of the corruption of the state. But we cannot argue that the influence is there, and that Christie's public actions extend that influence in a manner most likely improper for a United States Attorney.
Take for instance the flurry of subpoenas issued to Democratic office holders and party organs in the "Christmas Tree" investigation. The investigation itself is limited to 2002 - 2006, during Democratic control of the legislature and Governor's office. The Republicans had control of the same for the previous eight years, while sharing control of the Senate in 2001, but are not being investigated.
Christmas Tree items are those items tacked on to the state budget at the last minute, which legislators have used for generations to bring pork back to their districts. These have increased during Democratic control, but much of the increase is taken up by things like $6.9 million for a southern campus of the Cancer Institute of New Jersey. This is not to say the Christmas Tree process is good budgeting or ethical, but to note that the increase is not a reason to exclude Republican control from the investigation.
But at the same time Christie was dropping subpoenas on Governor Corzine's office and the Senate and Assembly Democratic Offices [edited to remove NJ DSC, which did not receive a subpoena in 2007] in January and February - to great publicity and screaming press releases from the Republicans - he was going throughout the state making comments like this:
"Only you can solve the problem (of public corruption). The way you can solve the problem is by becoming more involved citizens, more involved voters. Because the one thing people in political life understand even more than a subpoena from my office is losing an election," Mr. Christie said.
"Hold people to what they tell you in campaigns. Make them tell you the truth. And if they don't, then you kick them out of office. That is what will begin to change the climate and culture in New Jersey more than any indictment that I will ever be able to bring, more than any public figure I put in jail," said Mr. Christie.
This is, of course, demonstrably true. And many folks in politics say it. But the difference here is that Chris Christie is not supposed to be in politics, he is not supposed to be exhorting people to get involved. He is supposed to be discovering and prosecuting criminals and leaving politics to others.
And since the overwhelming number of public investigations and comments by the US Attorney in the past year plus have been against Democrats, the only inference possible is that Christie is asking the voters to "kick ... out of office."
Since January 2006 an exhaustive search of Internet news sources and various news services [view in Google Docs] has discovered just four instances of an investigation, subpoena, indictment or conviction of a Republican by the US Attorney's office. These are: - Robert Stears, lobbyist, pled guilty to mail fraud, 12/06.
- The Assembly Minority Office, Christmas Tree Investigation, 2/07
- The Senate Minority Office, Christmas Tree Investigation, 2/07
- Emerson Mayor Steve Setteducati, cleared by a letter from the US Attorney, 3/07
In 15 months, that's one conviction, two subpoenas to party organizations during an investigation of the Democratic leadership, and a letter clearing a Republican Mayor.
During the same time period, there have been 63 investigations, subpoenas, indictments or convictions of Democrats. [view in Google Docs] That sounds bad, but there are all of 12 convictions with well over half of those involving John Lynch and Charles Kushner.
Of course this is necessarily unscientific, in part because the US Attorney's office has not returned repeated calls from a Blue Jersey representative seeking the list of convictions Christie regularly speaks about, or for the list of public places he's spoken at. We cannot know - nor should we know - about all of the US Attorney's investigations, but we do know the ones that made the papers.
And 94 percent of those are of or related to Democrats in the past 15 months.
So the US Attorney's actions in the newspapers are 94 percent against one party, and then goes on a speaking tour urging voters to get engaged and kick the corrupt politicians out of office. People hearing him speak - at swearings-in, on 101.5 with The Jersey Guys, at colleges, and elsewhere - can't help but think he means the party he is investigating 94 percent of the time.
Perhaps 94 percent of the time is reasonable for the US Attorney, but the speaking tour is not, and improperly influences the electorate toward the Republican Party. Note that Christe has raised and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Republicans, and is the front-runner to serve as its 2009 standard bearer for New Jersey Governor.
These exhortations to get people active in politics can also be seen as an effort to build an informal grassroots base, much as Al Gore is being accused of doing with his An Inconvenient Truth tour. By exhorting people to political action in his role as corruption buster, Christie appears to be on an influence building tour and setting himself up to run for future office.
Clearly for someone covered by the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain federal employees from engaging in politics, this speaking tour is patently unethical and should be stopped immediately.
Often the "appearance of impropriety" is enough to generate an investigation of a public official by a prosecutor. Given how he got the job, how his investigation and conviction rates have changed, and his public speaking tour there is no way anyone can say that there is no appearance any longer. |
