There’s an interesting interview with Governor William Weld today. He apparently agrees with me that the prosecution of the probation officers by the Boston US Attorneys office is absolutely wrong. Remember Weld was the third in command of the Justice Department as well as Massachusetts Attorney General so he knows what should and should not be prosecuted.
It’s not only that he suggests that case is wrong he also thinks the case against Tim Cahill our former State Treasurer being decided (What’s taking the jury so long to decide. The issue is simple.) by the Suffolk jury is likewise wrong. I haven’t commented on that because I have a connection to it that makes it impossible to be totally candid. What Weld is pointing out is the US Attorney’s office in Boston (and the state’s attorney general) is criminalizing normal political activity.
You can get a sense of this from what I understand happened to some of the state reps who voted for Speaker DeLeo to be Speaker. They were dragged before a grand jury and asked whether they voted for him in exchange for him giving them a chance to get a person a probation job. Is there now something wrong with that?
All our politics is based on that from what I can see. The Speaker of the US House or the majority leader in the U.S. Senate are always doing horse trading to get votes. So is the president of the United States. Hasn’t the Speaker said to more than one Congress person “if you want that project for your state I need your vote on Bill XYZ.” Didn’t the woman senator from Louisiana hold up some important vote for the Democrats until she got more aid for the victims of the hurricane. That is politics, the art of compromise and you only get a compromise by giving each side something.
It seems only in Massachusetts and only under the watchful eye of the unelected prosecutors in the US Attorney;s office who know nothing about politics is something like political horse trading wrong. Glad to welcome Weld on board my team. I always liked the guy.
I also see that DA Conley is in a dispute with Judge Raymond Dougan over his decisions in certain cases and filed a 61 page complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commission against him. That Commission just backed up the judge. I’m a little lost how Conley feels that what he thinks is right the judge has to follow. His job is to present the case as well as he can, it’s up to the judge to decide what to do with it.
He is reported to have said: “Massachusetts judges have long been afforded the greatest protections, probably in America, to allow them to do their jobs with independence of mind and conscience. But our nation’s founders never believed, and neither should we, that to insure judicial independence, we must remove all accountability.”
He’s right. He should look at The Matter of Edward J. DeSaulnier, Jr. or In Re: Jerome P. Troy, Appellant to see there are ways to control judges. He also has it in his own hands to control his own cases. He can decide not to “move for trial” before Judge Dougan and not let his assistants participate in any activity before him. But that would be unwise because of the turmoil it would cause.
I suppose he’s made his point in an indirect way. Going after Judge Dougan will make sure the other judges stay in line. It’s seem strange that he’s in a public fight with the judge on matters that are in the judge’s discretion. Any wrongful legal decision by the judge can be addressed on appeal.
Still wondering what’s going to be the result of the AG’s investigation into Annie Doukan’s dealings; and the Caswell Motel Decision.