It may be a function of my not having examined the date suffficiently, but is there a table comparing indictments to eventaul outcomes (verdicts etc) for each party?

by Welshman on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 05:09:28 PM EST

I do have a question/suggestion though.  It would be very, very useful if we could also see data on the investigations and prosecutions of political figures going back to at least the Clinton administration, if not beforehand.  It would give us a good idea of whether or not the Bush administration's attorneys are doing something fundamentally different from previous administrations or not.

by balta1701 on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 05:56:30 PM EST

Also, some of the designations are off.  Bob Menendez was never a Gubernatorial candidate, Joseph DiVincenzo was an Essex County Freeholder (there are no Newark Freeholders), etc.

by Anonymous on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:12:08 PM EST

And what does "investigated" mean?  Sounds highly subjective.  It can mean just about anything.   By contrast, "indicted" and "convicted" have objective definitions -- the first proved by seeing a defendant's name and case number in the clerk's index, the second by a guilty plea, jury verdict, or judge-trial decision.

What is the source of the data?  There can easily be a selection bias.  If someone believes Democrats are being persecuted, then a lot of data can be found of Democrats who are charged and/or convicted, or at least "investigated".  Conversely, if someone wanted to show persecution of Republicans, one could focus really hard on finding Republicans who were indicted or at least "investigated", while not trying nearly so hard to find Democrats.

For example, there was a federal probe into judicial corruption in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana called "Operation Wrinkled Robe".  Two district judges -- Republican Ronald D. Bodenheimer and Democrat Alan Green -- were indicted, convicted, and sentenced to federal prison for various corruption charges.  However, your table lists only Green, and omits Bodenheimer.

As for "investigated", at least four other judges were subpoenaed and called before the federal grand jury in "Operation Wrinkled Robe" --  appeals judge Susan Chehardy, district judges Kernan "Skip" Hand and Steve Windhorst, and justice of the peace Steve Mortillaro.  I know Hand and Mortillaro are Republicans, and am not sure about Windhorst and Chehardy.  None of these judges are listed in your table.

(I grew up in New Orleans, and still follow news from down there.  The Louisiana section of your table was the first thing I turned to.)

However, I live in the Seattle area now (almost 20 years now) and was also interested in the Washington section of your table.  Three elected officials were listed, all present or former members of the Seattle City Council -- Heidi Wills, Judy Nicastro, and Jim Compton.  

By the way, all three of these people are Democrats.  Municipal elections in Washington are non-partisan ballots.  However, the King County Democrats do make endorsements (sometimes of multiple candidates in the same race) and only endorse people who fill out a questionnaire and state that they are Democrats.  Wills, Nicastro, and Compton were all endorsed by the King County Democrats, which means (at the very minimum) that they told that organization they were Democrats.

However, I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that our local U.S. Attorney's Office (led until recently by John McKay, one of the eight recent "removals") ever investigated Wills, Nicastro, and Compton for anything.  These people didn't commit any crime.  They did violate some Seattle ethics rules, and received fines from the Seattle Ethics and Election Commission for some improper ex-parte contacts and free dinners from the owners of a strip club with a rezoning application that was before the Seattle City Council.

The only criminal investigation was for state crimes by the King County Prosecuting Attorney, and did not involve Wills, Nicastro, and Compton.  Instead, the local prosecutor was looking at whether the strip club owner had illegally given campaign contributions to these council members, by laundering it through third parties.  Four people were eventually charged and are now pending trial in state court on these allegations.

You have listed no one else for the state of Washington.  However, Republican Spokane Mayor Jim West was "investigated" by the FBI for public corruption charges in a major way -- his home searched and his computers seized in August 2005, before being cleared in February 2006 of any federal criminal wrongdoing.  West was pretty infamous -- the voters recalled him from office in December 2005 for "misusing his office as mayor to lure teenage boys for sexual relationships".  Basically, Washington's answer to Mark Foley.  However, West is not included in your list.

(Oh, and speaking of former Republican Congressman Mark Foley of Florida -- he is nowhere to be found on your list either.  The FBI and Justice Department are "investigating" Foley to determine if he broke any federal laws in his page scandal.)

To make sure this study was as accurate as possible, you would have to eliminate selectivity bias.  You would need to have a listing of every single elected official or candidate who was been indicted for a federal crime (i.e. having a case number in federal district court), and the results of that case (i.e. conviction, acquittal, dismissal, etc.).  Only after compiling such a list should you try to determine the party affiliation of people on that list.

As for "investigations", that term seems too subjective to be defined.  Does it mean being called before a grand jury?  Or just being interviewed by FBI, other federal agents, or prosecutors?  The vast majority of people questioned in either fashion are witnesses, not suspects, in any event.  Or just being the subject of a frivolous complaint filed by some nutcase, which the FBI "investigates" and finds to be unwarranted?

by Richard Pope on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:19:48 AM EST