Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
BUMPED ASIDE: DEA honcho Lewis Rice wants to convict cocaine buyers nabbed in a "delivery" sting last year, but prosecutors aren't cooperating. - Joey Newfield
Hundreds of yuppie cokeheads snared by a sting - including doctors, lawyers and professors - are getting off because prosecutors say they're "genteel users" who can manage their habits, sources told The Post. "The attitude seems to be, these are not snot-dripping junkies on someone's doorstep, these people are more acceptable, so [federal prosecutors] are uncomfortable locking them up," said a source familiar with the decision.
Law-enforcement sources say U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White has chosen not to prosecute any of the white-collar powder purchasers caught in a massive home-delivery cocaine sting nearly a year ago. Sources have estimated the number of buyers between several hundred and 2,000-plus.
More than a half-dozen dealers have been busted, and most have pleaded guilty in the case. But no buyers have been charged.
The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration's office in New York, Lewis Rice, has lobbied hard for buyer arrests. But White has firmly rebuffed him, sources said.
"Rice said, ‘Just give me 100 people, to make a point that this is a real crime with consequences,'" said one fed.
Prosecutors are contemplating sending stern letters to the suspects warning them to keep their noses clean.
"These losers are buying drugs and they get an angry letter and a free ride?" scoffed one official. "It's unbelievable."
When White announced the dealers' arrests a year ago, she said the livery-cab operation made buying cocaine "as easy to order as a pizza."And some close to the case argue it would be almost as easy to prosecute many of the buyers.
"These people are caught on wiretaps, on videotape, on phone records," a source said. "Nothing's happening."
"We can't comment on any specific investigation," said White's spokesman Marvin Smilon. "However, the focus of federal drug prosecutions is on importers, dealers and distributors. Very rarely is any buyer or user charged federally."
DEA agents spent a year building the case by observing a bogus livery-cab service run out of a Queens apartment by Jose Fernandez, who pleaded guilty in November.
Investigators found that the ring took phone orders for cocaine that drivers would deliver to customers - many of them at Wall Street banks, white-shoe law firms and swank Manhattan addresses, according to court documents.
Sources say that since the dealers' arrests, many of the buyers have hired lawyers who have bombarded officials with phone calls, insisting their clients not be charged in the case.
Other law-enforcement officials said they were surprised by White's decision, especially since the NYPD regularly busts buyers in undercover operations.
"So, basically this means that if you buy loose joints in Washington Square Park, you're going to get charged, but if you are a regular cocaine customer, you don't," one said.
I haven't bought in to the idea that Clinton didn't see the fallout well ahead of time and has been prepared for some time. Remember '93. His first move was to secure his flank by replacing all US Attorneys. It's flanktime.
I don't post much these days but thought this article should be seen.
Incidenentally, MJ White is also lead prosecutor on the bin Laden grand jury that's been up since '96, which is to say she has monstrous (non)investigative resources at her disposal.
This is one reason why we will not win a war on drugs. If they would prosecute these cokeheads they would send a message. Where do they think most of the money comes from in the drug trade? These upper class users inject money into the drug economy that then cycles through the system. If you cut off the money from these high end users you start choking off large injections of cash. The low end junkie dealers won't have as many clients to help them support their habits. Either prosecute these people or just call off the whole drug war as a joke. No wonder poor people call it the just-us system instead of justice system.
This is selective prosecution, and to all those unfortunate who have been arrested and convicted, they should pursue a class action suit under the Constitution's Equal protection clause. This prosecutor took an oath, I assume, to uphold the Constitution and the laws. It ain't happenin'.
The drug war is a bigger disaster than prohibition ever was. Drugs should be decriminalized pronto. Some of the money saved from dismantling the DEA and firing all the excessed bureaucrats and narcotics agents can be used to treat the behavior problems of drug addicts. We can repatriot all our "advisors" in Latin American drug wars, too.
Contact Atorney General, John ashcroft, and make him and his staff aware of this.
US Attorney General's Contact Info
Time to retest the US Attorney's office staff in question for drugs...
I expected the anti-drugwar response. But I think the larger issue is equal protection under the law, which is blatantly absent in the circumstances described in the article.
If you really want to get anxious about today's "bombshell", read this: Source: US attorney to probe Rich pardon
If you really want to get anxious about today's "bombshell", read this: Gene Giacumbo Goes Through the Looking-Glass
This isnt an equal protection issue. Equal protection implies equally situated people get equivilent treatment.
Drug dealers and drug sellers are not equally situated individuals so an equal protection claim is at best specious.
Or just use the money spent on the DEA and related activities and spend it on solving murders, rapes, robberies, etc...
From my understanding, the number of 'unsolved' murders in LA County is somewhere above 25%. You think that maybe putting the hundreds of DEA/Vice detectives on those cases might have an impact?
And think about all the time spent by patrol cops searching/arresting people for drugs. I can't count the number of times I see CHP with some guy pulled over, while an officer rummages through the car for *some time* looking for drugs. The load on our law enforcement placed by the Drug War and drug laws is HUGE. If we spent those resources on crimes-with-a-victim, I think we'd have a much safer society (with legalized drugs) than we have today.
"The load on our law enforcement placed by the Drug War and drug laws is HUGE."
Oh Paleeez. I'm certainly not going to feel sorry for paid puppet pigs. No one forces them to search for drugs or to be a police officer for that matter. They are willing participants in an unconstitutional role, to place the US under totalitarian rule.
They could, in fact, reallocate their resources to concentrate on violent criminal activity. They just chose not to. It is that simple.
keep their noses clean
LOL.
Some considerations if we end the War on Drugs. Suddenly there would be unemployed an army of dynamic entry specialists and government killers. The last time something like that happened was after the Viet Nam war which is when we really got into every podunk burg having its own SWAT team. The deactivation of DEA would be followed by a bloating of BATF and FBI murder teams. Every town would have to have its own trained snipers and demolitions experts. The government domestic armies should be dismantled but instead of firing the troops they should all be deported to Chechnya and never allowed to return. Or they should be... well I'll leave it at deportation.
I disagree with your take. At the local level, buyers and sellers are busted. And in many stings, conspiracy to purchase is used liberally. Here, they're letting the other guilty parties simply walk away.
Whether you disagree with some or all of the drug laws, I should hope that as Americans we can agree that the laws should be enforced equally, whatever they may be. How else can a citizenry unite to fight unjust laws.
It is no secret that the best argument against the War on Drugs is its unequal prosecution of the bottom of the drug chain, which happens to be poor and 'ethnic'. All of America is awash in narcotics, not just the ghetto.
If we can't offer equal protection, what are we selling?
What hypocrisy in this country
Vilify the drug sellers but nothing about the users
THEY COULDN'T SELL IT IF NOBODY WAS BUYING
STOP THIS INSANE DRUG WAR
Maybe we should have mandatory prosecution along with mandatory sentences. This would relieve the prosecutors of the temptation to take bribes or favors for their lack of interest in crime.
Very rarely is any buyer or user charged federally.
I thought lots of people were in federal prison on mere possession charges. Was I wrong?
If it becomes an open secret that the drug laws aren't enforced against the ruling class, isn't it past time to shut down the War on Drugs?
They could, in fact, reallocate their resources to concentrate on violent criminal activity. They just chose not to. It is that simple.
They chose not to because there's money to be gotten from asset forfeiture of drug dealers, there's no money to be gotten from violent perps. It's all fund-driven.
I haven't the faintest idea how to solve the Drug question. To me, hard drug use is a crisis of the spirit - unlegislatable. However, dealing hard drugs is clearly criminal behavior. Anyone who knows knows that the trade attracts society's worst personalities, to put it mildly.
The disastrous marriage between our society's weakest (addicts) and most cynical (dealers) characters presents the thorniest of all public policy matters.
But wide open drugs in the USA? No thanks. I know better.
Now, about this Mary Jo White.....
What drug problem, we have plenty of drugs ? It is true, if you have been unfortunate enough to have a dope house open for business in your neighborhood you know what the score is. Medical Professionals, Students, lawyers, business people, cops..yes the cops do it too, and these are the very same people who go home and get high while the war on drugs rages in your hood.
>I disagree with your take. At the local level, buyers and >sellers are busted. And in many stings, conspiracy to >purchase is used liberally. Here, they're letting the >other guilty parties simply walk away.
I honestly dont agree with the drug war but thats not the point Im making. You can say that sellers should be busted as well. I disagree but your position on that is not unreasonable.
but .. You simply cant make the argument that these people are equally situated. You have two people who arrived to conduct a transaction but thats where the similarity stops. The actions legal and illegal that the dealers took to get to that transaction are completely different than the actions that got the consumer there. One made an illegal purchase processed the drugs packaged the drugs laundered money etc etc etc.
The other party commited the illegal act of purchasing and consuming those drugs. There is no obligation to treat these people equally any more than there is an obligation to treat jay walkers the same way as ax murderers. You can argue that users should be treated harshly but you cant argue a constitutional duty to prosecute everyone or noone.
Its actually even less of an issue than the run of the mill justice system where armed robbers can be convicted of the exact same crime yet get different sentences. Whether you disagree with some or all of the drug laws, I should hope that as Americans we can agree that the laws should be enforced equally, whatever they may be. How else can a citizenry unite to fight unjust laws. It is no secret that the best argument against the War on Drugs is its unequal prosecution of the bottom of the drug chain, which happens to be poor and 'ethnic'. All of America is awash in narcotics, not just the ghetto. If we can't offer equal protection, what are we selling?
It is no secret that the best argument against the War on Drugs is its unequal prosecution of the bottom of the drug chain, which happens to be poor and 'ethnic'. All of America is awash in narcotics, not just the ghetto.
The same can be said of the war on murder the war on rape etc etc. The fact that wealthy people can afford better lawyers is a tragedy when they are guilty and a blessing when they are innocent. It is paradoxical but it is both just and unjust at the same time.
This isnt an equal protection issue. Equal protection implies equally situated people get equivilent treatment.
Drug dealers and drug sellers are not equally situated individuals so an equal protection claim is at best specious.
These two sentences make no sense. In the latter, did you mean "Drug dealers and drug users"?
Many, many drug users are in our prisons. Most of them are low income and black. The equal protection issue is: poor and/or black - jail time. Rich and white - slap on the wrist.
Both should be treated equally. And AG Ashcroft should get rid of all of the sitting U.S. Attorneys (like Remo did) and put in people who will do their job.
The fact that wealthy people can afford better lawyers is a tragedy when they are guilty and a blessing when they are innocent.
Better lawyers?! They're not even being charged. HELLLLLO?
Both should be treated equally. And AG Ashcroft should get rid of all of the sitting U.S. Attorneys (like Remo did) and put in people who will do their job.
Thanks for the correction. Yes I meant sellers vs buyers.
In this particular case we arent talking about the same crime but if you are referring to a black guy busted for selling a gram vs. a white guy than you have a point.
On the other hand as a practical matter no two criminals are equally situated. The circumstances in each case differ. Insisting on rigid treatment based on the category of offense will lead to some ridiculous conclusions along the lines of what we see in public schools where there was an eagle scout suspended because he had an ax in the trunk of his car.
I do not consider evaluating crimes on a case by case basis and judging your prosecution efforts based on the danger a person presents to the community unreasonable.
If I had weapons charges on two individuals one who was suspected in 16 killings and one who no apparent threat but was technically in violation of law I would want the resources thrown at the first guy.
Sorry for the excessive wind
Better lawyers?! They're not even being charged. HELLLLLO?
And you dont think that prosecutors consider the fact that the defendent will have a team of lawyers and will be 10 times as to prosecute as another target makes a difference in these decisions? HELLLLLO?
An attorney or softball team full of them dont have to make it into court to be effective.
When people are innocent the mere threat of a team of lawyers prevents them from going through an unjust trial. When they are guilty it unjustly allows them to avoid trial.
and will be 10 times as to prosecute
Correction
and will be 10 times as expensive to prosecute
Can I borrow a proof reader?
Users are not being prosecuted in jurisdictions all over the country. We have what is known as drug court, here. That means that users get rehab, pee tests and probation.
I think you're thinking in abstracts. The hundreds, maybe thousands, of cases mentioned in the article had overwhelming forensic evidence. Absent corruption or lopsided prosecutorial zeal, these would be high percentage convictions according to the DEA official.
If you don't like the drug laws just say so. The evidence of a lopsided War on Drugs is widespread at both state and federal levels.
But I don't think that's the case in point here. It appears this US Attorney did not wish to prosecute hundreds of Manhattan's elite. Manhattan's elite votes overwhelmingly Democratic.
It should be pointed out, she must be under extraordinary local pressure - these are the glitterati of NYC and beyond, a powerful bunch unto themselves. But a better candidate for Ken Starr redeux I cannot imagine. The way she has drug her heels on the Labor-DNC corruption (should be RICO but Reno saw to that) cases is as Clintonian as any other 90's scandal.
If you don't like the drug laws just say so. The evidence of a lopsided War on Drugs is widespread at both state and federal levels.
Im a bit confused by your tone. It sounds like you are not an advocate of the drug war. Im not either, but if you do think the drug war is a bad idea why not argue that noone should be prosecuted instead of everyone?
You may very well be right about the connections of the constituents but very wealthy people (ala OJ) often are acquitted of crimes when there is overwhelming evidence against them.
In any case there is still a limited resource issue here. The wealthy socialites are unlikely to pose a threat to anyone. Dealers who participate in a black market are a different story. If these decisions are based on reason rather than race or income I dont have a problem with them.
Thanks for a good discussion.
Re my tone on the drug war. I don't accept the idea that because our present policies have failed we should have no policy at all. I know more about the drug war in human terms than is good for anybody. So don't ask me about the drug war. I posted this because most Freepers are doing cartwheels over the news that Mary Jo White has stopped the momentum of the Burton committee. DOJ stops ol' Dan in his tracks yet again.
I think many are forgetting the character with whom we are dealing, Bill Clinton. In many ways, he's more dangerous now that he's not "checked" by 2 branches of government. I think there's much much more to come......
I think many are forgetting the character with whom we are dealing, Bill Clinton. In many ways, he's more dangerous now that he's not "checked" by 2 branches of government. I think there's much much more to come......
Boy we cant seem to agree on anything. At the moment I think Bill and Hillary are damaged goods. I have some thoughts on the issue that are really more a topic for another thread. Bill is always dangerous however. He is like a quarterback who repeatedly throws a touchdown pass on 4th and 27 from his own 3 yard line.
I'd go a step further and suggest that confirmed addicts be supplied their drugs via a legal, inexpensive means so that they can lead more normal lives until they decide to shake their addiction. It will take most of the money out of the illegal drug trade.
Hundreds of yuppie cokeheads snared by a sting - including doctors, lawyers and professors - are getting off because prosecutors say they're "genteel users" who can manage their habits, sources told The Post. "The attitude seems to be, these are not snot-dripping junkies on someone's doorstep, these people are more acceptable, so [federal prosecutors] are uncomfortable locking them up," said a source familiar with the decision.
Wait.
Are not ALL drug users so-called commie-fag-junkie-pervert-hippie-freaks?
The image of a class of prosperous "genteel users" is discordant with dominant anti-drug mythology.
Prosecution of these people only serves to reveal the weakness upon which the drug wars stand.
These people are not intrinsically dangerous to society, nor do they appear self-destructive and in need of society's "compassion."
Drug dealers and drug sellers are not equally situated individuals so an equal protection claim is at best specious.
U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White has chosen not to prosecute any of the white-collar powder purchasers caught in a massive home-delivery cocaine sting nearly a year ago. Sources have estimated the number of buyers between several hundred and 2,000-plus.
Did you even read the article??
I haven't the faintest idea how to solve the Drug question. To me, hard drug use is a crisis of the spirit - unlegislatable. However, dealing hard drugs is clearly criminal behavior. Anyone who knows knows that the trade attracts society's worst personalities, to put it mildly.
For starters:
Legalize pot. Legalize cocaine possession, license the sellers, sellers must run a computer check of buyer before sales. Right to purchase can be revoked for crimes involving drugs etc. Unlicensed sales of cocaine punishable depending on amount...(3 years per 100 'doses', $5000 fine per 100, maximum 30 years)
Be hard on sales to minors.
Psychedelics, LSD, XTC, mescaline... criminal possession for over 100 doses (3 years per 100, $5000 fine per 100, maximum 30 years), criminal sales of over 5 doses (6 months, $500 fine), possession under 100 doses ($200 base fine, plus $10 per dose)
Sales of any drugs except pot to minors, (1 year, $5000 fine per dose, maximum 20 years).
End asset forfeiture except where dosage of drugs exceeds 10,000. No knock warrants not to be issued unless the expected seizure exceeds 5,000 doses. Warrants that fail to meet that level will free defendents of criminal sentencing, but not fines.
No warrants shall issue for suspected possession, warrants failing to seize evidence proving trafficking in a court shall also relieve defendents of jail time, but not fines as spelled out under possession.
Restrict the DEA to international trafficing. Use the FBI as a clearing house, but not an enforcer of interstate trafficing, leave that to state police.
We can end the war and still 'protect' society.
Drug dealers and drug sellers are not equally situated individuals so an equal protection claim is at best specious.
This was a typo and was corrected to drug sellers and buyers.
Yes I read the article. Did you actually read or understand my comments in this thread?
thanks I was looking for this
.
"Prosecution of these people only serves to reveal the weakness upon which the drug wars stand. These people are not intrinsically dangerous to society, nor do they appear self-destructive and in need of society's "compassion."
BINGO!
I've heard that the Prosecutor didn't want to proceed because of the pressure these "elite" can put on the politicians, and that they didn't want to use the extra resources it would take to convict. Both of these have merit. BUT the overwhelming reason they do not want to proceed is because a parade of doctors, lawyers, and other rich (well-bred?) drug users before the cameras would totally discredit the picture the government has painted for the general public.
Without a "demon" (those gutter trash over there), the government's pathological crusade against "drugs" looses all credibility.
I can now see the drug war as a form of ethnic cleansing.
...the good old Clinton / Reneo / DOJ "ongoing investigation" stall....
Pleeeeeeeeeease ~ Mary Jo White is Janet Reno's MiniMe - what a phony - read: Labor V. Ashcroft from last week's WSJ. :
.
Click on this Garner cartoon and go to: Blood in the Water -The Democrats got Chavez without cashing in a single chit ~ WSJ.
.
Bill Clinton's Favorite Home Videos <<<-----click here
In a memorable, melodramatic duel of anthems sung in opposition, the
Germans
are drowned out 
by the Free French audience as the accelerated rhythmic
editing increases the scene's intensity as it builds toward its climax.
Everyone at the cafe pours their hearts into the singing of the song, except for two individuals - Rick and Ilsa. In two closeups, she gazes at Victor in a state of awe, fear and prideful admiration, forgetting to sing. Yvonne, who has been sitting at the bar with her German officer, shouts: "Vive la France!" at its stirring conclusion.
With the inspiration of Laszlo's bold, patriotic, revolutionary act,
Major
Strasser is thoroughly embarrassed and considers him a dangerous threat.
He
promptly orders Renault to 
punish the cafe's patrons and close down
Rick's
place before storming out, on the grounds that people are having "much
too
good a time." Rick protests to French gendarmes, but to no effect.
Reluctantly, Renault closes the saloon, hypocritically blaming it on illegal gambling:
Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that
gambling is going on in
here.
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Renault: Oh. Thank you very much. Everybody out at once.
Renault is handed his gambling winnings by the croupier as he finishes his pronouncements...........
.........Confronting Ilsa without Laszlo at her side, Major Strasser intimidates Ilsa and threatens to return Laszlo to occupied France "under safe conduct" from himself. Bravely and steadfastly, she questions the validity or safety of his guarantee. As he parts, the sinister Major offers two alternatives for her husband: placement in a "concentration camp" by French authorities, or death as he explains bluntly:
My dear Mademoiselle, perhaps you have already observed that in Casablanca [translation: 'The White House'], human life is cheap. Good night, Mademoiselle.
By Micah Morrison, a Journal editorial page writer.
A federal jury in New York will soon decide whether former International Brotherhood of Teamsters political director William Hamilton is guilty of a conspiracy to embezzle $850,000 in union funds to illegally aid the 1996 re-election effort of then-Teamster President Ron Carey. The arcane case has received scant media attention, but a wakeup call may be on the way. A conviction of Mr. Hamilton could open the door to a criminal conspiracy prosecution that would rock the Democratic Party.
U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White brought a five-count indictment against Mr. Hamilton, charging him with conspiring to divert funds from the Teamsters' treasury, embezzlement of union funds, mail fraud, wire fraud and false statements. Two conspirators, former Carey campaign manager Jere Nash and liberal activist Michael Ansara, pleaded guilty to siphoning union funds and testified for the government at the trial.
 Campaign finance prosecutor |
The case is not about the technicalities of campaign-finance laws. At issue is the misuse of Teamster funds contributed by the rank-and-file to sway an internal election.
"Money poured out of the Teamsters' General Treasury Fund like water from an open faucet," Robert Rice, Ms. White's lead prosecutor, told the jury. Under federal law, it is illegal to use money from a union treasury to promote the candidacy of anyone running for union office. Union dues, in other words, could not be used to fund Mr. Carey's campaign against James Hoffa, son of the legendary labor leader.
But it is legal to use union money to make certain other types of political contributions. For example, donations to issue-advocacy groups that lobby voters and contributions for get-out-the-vote drives are permitted.
Mr. Hamilton reported to Mr. Carey and was in charge of Teamster political donations. The prosecution charges that he and his alleged co-conspirators cooked up a series of swap schemes to generate and conceal illegal donations to Mr. Carey. Mr. Hamilton donated Teamster funds to voter-education and -mobilization groups that had been enlisted in the alleged scheme. In return, the prosecution says, these groups or their friends made donations to the Carey campaign or retired debts owed by the campaign.
Mr. Rice told the jury that in the early fall of 1996, "$885,000 poured out of the Teamsters' General Treasury Fund under the guise of political contributions to four organizations: Citizen Action, Project Vote, the National Council of Senior Citizens ... and the AFL-CIO." In exchange for those contributions, "$325,000 from other sources was kicked back to benefit the Carey re-election effort."
A parade of witnesses detailed the serpentine schemes. The services of top officials of the Clinton-Gore re-election effort, the Democratic National Committee and the AFL-CIO were enlisted, according to trial testimony. Some of the fund-transfer allegations cited during the trial involve Terry McAuliffe, today a senior Democratic Party fund-raiser and in 1996 head of the Clinton-Gore re-election effort; Mr. Carey, whose 1996 re-election to head the Teamsters was later voided due to the scandal; and AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka, who asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege when questioned by government investigators. While these men have not been charged, evidence introduced by Ms. White's team suggests that the conspiracy to violate election laws reached much higher than Mr. Hamilton.
One of Mr. Hamilton's alleged co-conspirators, political consultant Martin Davis, approached top Democratic Party officials as part of the scheme, Mr. Rice told the jury. Mr. Davis went to Mr. McAuliffe in search of money. "McAuliffe put Davis in touch with Laura Hartigan, the finance director of the Clinton-Gore committee," Mr. Rice said. "Laura Hartigan, in turn, put Davis in touch with Richard Sullivan, the finance director of the Democratic National Committee." Mr. Davis pleaded guilty to conspiring to funnel union funds and agreed to cooperate with the prosecution. But as Mr. Hamilton's trial neared, Mr. Davis apparently had second thoughts; he did not appear as a witness. His plea bargain with the government is now "under review," Mr. Rice said.
Mr. Hamilton's attorney, Robert Gage, opened a three-pronged defense last week. First, all the Teamster contributions were made in good faith to "legitimate organizations" that had "important relationships with labor," Mr. Gage told the jury in his opening statement. Second, 1996 was a tumultuous election year, and Democrats were desperate to defeat "the Gingrich Congress." Finally, the conspiracy was executed by Mr. Nash and Mr. Davis, not his client.
Mr. Gage plays a tricky political card in the courtroom. His first witness was Sarah Weddington, the matronly Texas lawyer who fought Roe v. Wade to the Supreme Court. A character witness, she played no part in the alleged swap schemes. Smiling broadly at the seven women on the jury, she declared that Mr. Hamilton was "one of the most honest people I've ever known."
But juries are notoriously fickle, and the pander on abortion and Mr. Gingrich may not go over well. Out of the jury's presence, Judge Thomas Griesa summed up the case: The issue is "whether Mr. Hamilton approved certain contributions ... in order to procure contributions indirectly for the Ronald Carey campaign."
The defense has yet to rest its case. But if the jury puts the swap notion foremost in its deliberations, Mr. Hamilton could be looking at a serious problem. And Ms. White, a rising star in Democratic Party legal circles, would be looking at one of the toughest decisions of her career: whether to proceed with a conspiracy case against some of the most powerful figures in her own party.
.
BUMP !
.
November 22, 1999
![[The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition]](http://interactive.wsj.com/media/strap-article-Front.gif){kind=small}
On Friday the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White, did what Attorney General Janet Reno has so conspicuously failed to do for the past three years: bring home a significant conviction in a campaign-finance case. While "reformers" clamor for more campaign finance laws, the ones on the books are not enforced. Worse, the flag of "campaign finance" is offered as a cover for all sorts of otherwise illegal activity, such as stealing money from your fiduciaries.
This defense did not work in the trial of William Hamilton, former political director of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. A Federal jury convicted him on all counts in a conspiracy to embezzle $885,000 in union funds to aid the 1996 re-election effort of then-Teamster President Ron Carey. Testimony at the trial included accounts of illegal money-laundering schemes involving the AFL-CIO, the Democratic National Committee and liberal activist groups. Having won this stunning conviction, Ms. White must now decide whether to pursue higher-ups--notably Mr. Carey and Richard Trumka, the treasurer of the AFL-CIO--who were implicated by evidence offered at the trial.
"Trial testimony revealed that several other individuals participated in the conspiracy that looted the Teamster treasury," current Teamster President James P. Hoffa said in a statement issued after the convictions. "We urge U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White and the Justice Department to pursue these individuals to the fullest extent of the law." Mr. Hoffa further noted that the funds in question have not been returned to the Teamster treasury, saying he has directed the union's attorneys to prepare "appropriate legal action" to recover them. So the Teamsters may bring a triple-damages suit against the AFL-CIO, or at least its treasurer. Trial testimony also included references to roles played by other prominent unions in parts of the conspiracy, most notably Gerald McEntee's American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees and Andy Stern's Service Employees International Union.
Also implicated by trial testimony is Terry McAuliffe, all-purpose Clinton-Gore fundraiser. Just last week, Mr. McAuliffe hosted a $200,000 fundraiser for the Gore campaign at the home of Tony Coelho, the Gore campaign chief. Last week we also learned, though a Freedom of Information Act action by ABC News, that Stephen Potts, director of the Office of Government Ethics, wrote a letter to the White House complaining about its statements on his office's view of the now-cancelled arrangements under which Mr. McAuliffe would back the Clinton's home purchase. It seems the President lied in saying the ethics office had ruled this was not a gift under government rules. The crowd now at the top of the vice president's 2000 campaign suggests that a Gore administration would continue the law-enforcement practices of the Clinton administration.
Mr. McAuliffe's efforts to aid Mr. Carey--finding a donor for his campaign in return for larger Teamster contributions to the Democratic Party--did not succeed in moving money. Richard Ben-Veniste , his lawyer, says his client did no wrong. But it would be instructive to learn if a jury agrees; the conspiracy laws can be broadly construed.
The Hamilton verdict establishes that money definitely did move from the Teamster Treasury to the Carey campaign. In his opening statement, lead prosecutor Robert Rice detailed the involvement of Mr. Carey and Mr. Trumka. Mr. Hamilton asked Mr. Carey to approve a $150,000 contribution to the AFL, which had not then requested the money. The next day Mr. Trumka submitted a request for the $150,000 and told an accountant that some money might be coming in, which should be sent to the activist group Citizen Action. Carey approved the $150,000, which ended up at Citizen Action. Then $100,000 was sent to another body, the November Group, where it was used to reduce fees owed by the Carey re-election campaign.
The prosecution presented a parade of witnesses testifying to various aspects of the elaborate swap schemes and ruses that generated the illegal donations for Mr. Carey. Phone messages, faxes, phony invoices and a cascade of hefty checks formed the basis of the paper trail. As Mr. Rice said, "Money poured out of the Teamsters' General Treasury Fund like water from an open faucet."
Ms. White has to determine whether the leaders of organized labor can be allowed to play this way with their members' money. By the way, in the Beck decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that union members that do not agree with political contributions by their leaders are entitled to refunds on their dues; as one of its first acts, the Clinton administration reversed a Bush administration executive order setting up procedures to enforce this rule. Beck, like campaign finance, is a law Clinton Justice has simply decided to ignore.
Mr. Hamilton's attorneys have pledged to appeal, but he might be wiser to cooperate. He faces as much as 30 years in prison and over $1 million in fines and restitution when he comes for sentencing before U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa.
The burden of deciding how far to carry this case, though, now rests with Ms. White. Will she proceed with a broad criminal conspiracy case against some of the most powerful figures in both organized labor and the Democratic Party? Her resounding victory in the Hamilton case is reason to press on, and it would be reassuring to learn that even in the Clinton administration there are prosecutors professional enough to go where the evidence leads them.
.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 39 | Top | Last ]
You are right in #2. This is racist/status profiling at its very worst.
If we are to salvage the tattered remnants of what remain if our liberties, we must end the insane War on Drugs, coupling it with the requirement that those who DO partake of those substances take FULL AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOING SO -- including NOT looking to the taxpayers for damage control on either physical or societal levels.
My guess is that a wave of OD deaths on the steps of former "free" big city hospitals would quickly get the word out that if one does these drugs -- and screws up -- THEY WILL BEAR THE FULL CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ERROR and drug use will drop to much lower levels.
And, as brutal as it sounds, those who DO persist will, in the sort of Darwinist outcome favored by the pro-aborts who inconsistently also seem to support free clinics for junkies, deepen the gene pool.
This was a typo and was corrected to drug sellers and buyers.
Yes, I read it the way you meant it. I also pointed out that the people in the article are DEALERS, and are not being treated equally because of thier 'class'.
So, I am at a loss to see how drug users (buyers) enter into the picture at all.
Im sorry but now I need to ask if you read the article. The article is pointing out that the dealers are getting busted but the white collar buyers are not.
My point was simply that there is no equal protection issue in prosecuting buyers differently since they are not guilty of the same crime as the sellers.
Wanna try an experiment? Take one 48 hour period and treat the rich the same way the poor are treated vis-a-vis this nation's drug laws. My bet is the Drug War ends the next day.
The wealthy socialites are unlikely to pose a threat to anyone. Dealers who participate in a black market are a different story.
While I certainly agree with your first statement, I must hasten to point out that this particular black market wouldn't have exitsted without those wealthy socialites. The dealers don't run around selling to each other. At any rate, law enforcement spends plenty of time setting up users with buy-and-bust operations, so its not like drug buyers are never targeted. Just not this particular type of drug buyer (white, rich, and prone to scoring drugs behind closed doors, not on the street).
While I certainly agree with your first statement, I must hasten to point out that this particular black market wouldn't have exitsted without those wealthy socialites.
Understood. Im not defending the drug war. Its a bad idea all the way around. There is no excuse for the existence of contraband in a free society.
law enforcement spends plenty of time setting up users with buy-and-bust operations, so its not like drug buyers are never targeted. Just not this particular type of drug buyer (white, rich, and prone to scoring drugs behind closed doors, not on the street).
I dont disagree here either. The comments I made were really limited to this particular case. I dont deny that poor people are a heck of alot more likely to get busted on possession. And no I dont think that is fair.
Aw, heck, you mean we agree? That's no fun ;^)
Im pretty distressed myself.
What's a genteel user? I didn't have sex with that woman or I didn't inhale? When is this going to stop and these people should start being held accountable.
The "genteel" user extends his/her pinky while snorting up.
However, dealing hard drugs is clearly criminal behavior. Anyone who knows knows that the trade attracts society's worst personalities, to put it mildly.
Apologies if someone has already said this; I haven't finished reading through the thread. The reason the drug trade attracts these pond scum is due to its black market nature. Abolish the black market (via legalization) and you take the trade out of the hands of these sometimes-violent criminals, and put it back into the hands of responsible pharmacists, doctors and merchants. These people wouldn't be peddling them to our children.
Regards,
MA
"They chose not to because there's money to be gotten from asset forfeiture of drug dealers, there's no money to be gotten from violent perps. It's all fund-driven."
Which is why we must revamp the entire system. Asset forfeiture for non-violent consensual activities is unconstitutional, as are the laws, which lead to such barbaric action. This must be stopped!
I see nothing wrong with asset forfeiture for violent criminal activity. But the assets should go to pay the victims of the criminal; NOT to enrich the coffers of government – and certainly not to the very branch of government that would most benefit from such seizures, while having the power to conduct same.
Right now, local, state, and the federal governments rob working Americans of 50% of their money, when you include all the federal, state, and local income, sales and personal property taxes. Just looking at the added costs to our telephone bill alone is enough to make a grown man cry!
We pay all this money, and what do we get? More laws designed to destroy our individual liberties, which require even more government to enforce police-state tactics. It is CRIMINAL what the commie Republicans and Democrats are doing to us. This should outrage people, but instead they sit around trying to convince one other who the lesser of two evils is. What is this, Darwin’s Theory of Devolution?
The conservative movement is in big trouble. I need only read some of the comments on this site to know that there are some, who firmly believe that they are conservative, but their beliefs give them away. People who see this monster called government for what it is, should be flocking to the Libertarian Party. It is our only hope, if we are to recapture the attributes that made this country great. Instead these people continue to defend the indefensible when it is an act committed by their party, and they boo/hiss the very same actions when it is committed by “that other evil party”. The irony of it all!
We are despised in the world, and rightly so. We have gone from being the good neighbor, to being the world’s bully, to satisfy political greed. Americans aren’t protected, we’re used as cannon fodder. This should outrage people too, but still they moan without making any real commitment to what they know to be true.
I know I’ve rambled, but all of these things are interrelated, and they will not go away as long as we vote for Republicans and Democrats.
Im sorry but now I need to ask if you read the article.
My mistake. But I still purport that users are not being treated equally. Nor are sellers in general.
Of course, this is nothing new in our legal system. Those with the best lawyers can afford 'justice'.
Of course, this is nothing new in our legal system. Those with the best lawyers can afford 'justice'.
That was actually one of my points. It seems to me a prosecutor has a choice of prosecuting one rich guy who will have 5 slick lawyers or 5 poor guys with 1 rather gummy lawyer. From a pragmative perspective it makes sense but sure it can be unfair.
Click on Clinton's latest stained lady and go to: That's Rich - Will Mary Jo White find out if Clinton took cash for pardons? ~ WSJ.
Mary Jo White ~ Janet Reno's
MiniMe
.
You simply cant ma