Out today is an interesting piece cobbled together on the downlow about John Kroger's first high profile gig as Attorney General--investigating Sam Adams for criminal behavior. As the AG's office refuses to comment, the story is left to educated speculation on who's doing what, but it does name names:
While it's unclear which of the Department of Justice's attorneys has taken the case, the agency has assigned Ron Nelson as lead investigator in the Adams matter, said sources familiar with the case.
Nelson retired as a special agent for the department in June. But the agency hired him back on July 15 as a temporary criminal investigator, said Lonn Hoklin, a spokesman for the state Department of Administrative Services.
Nelson has worked his share of major investigations during an 18-year career with the Justice Department, distinguishing himself as a tenacious investigator on drug, prostitution and public corruption cases. He spent part of this week interviewing key witnesses in the Adams case.
As I said, that's about as close as it comes to news. The rest is largely former DAs and legal people using their experience to paint a picture of what the investigation would likely entail (They're going to interview anybody who knows anything, in case you were wondering). But the end of the article hones in on the question of misdemeanor assault, the criminal charge being focused on as applicable to any pre-18 romantic contact between Adams and Breedlove:
The issue of whether a kiss amounts to sex was decided by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2001. A panel ruled that lips can be considered intimate body parts, and that a kiss can be considered sexual contact under certain circumstances.
In the Adams case, both Breedlove and Adams would have to consider the kiss more than chaste, according to the law. Or if Adams didn't view it that way, then the test is that a reasonable person would consider the kiss intimate.
As an aside, I know it's a meaningless distinction to most readers, but it would be helpful to some to know exactly what case we're talking about when referring to a legal precedent. The Appeals Court in 2001 said, in Horny Gent v Saucy Teen...etc. Regardless, the way The O parses the law, how is Adams not in serious danger of indictment? Does any reasonable person not consider a one minute kiss slightly more than chaste? Because this interpretation differs from previous reportage about lips being "initmate parts" that I've seen, it's why I'd love to know what case we're talking about here. If the above is correct, isn't that...relevant?
I'm still uncomfortable about the entire investigation given that as far as I know, no individual has lodged a specific criminal complaint--the allegation of a crime committed by Adams. That's not what we have here; what we have is a fishing expedition to see if there's any illegal activity surrounding the relationship Adams revealed. But no one has made any on-record allegation that a crime occurred. If that sounds reasonable to you, ask yourself if you'd welcome an investigation without complaint, into any of the activities you've comported that simply "look suspicious." Does the fling in question look suspicious? That is, causes a question by the known facts and not by the appearances? If so, it's only because Adams lied in a political context, which is dangerous ground IMO for the legal system to inject itself into.
Would I support a City ethics investigation? Wholeheartedly. I think there are rules of conduct that all City employees are accountable for, and as Commissioner Adams certainly would seem to have given some of those rules short shrift. If an ethics rebuke is warranted by investigation, it should be given. That's a response to Adams' behavior that requires neither recall nor resignation, but is still an on-record black mark on his professional portfolio--as it should be.
What I think, ain't stopping John Kroger of course. I think the most interesting path to take is the notion left by KATU's anonymous Breedlove "friend," who claimed he received a text message from Beau admitting a prior-to-18 affair. If that's true, there should be an electronic record, or? More coming, undoubtedly. Meanwhile, Willamette Week breathlessly notes that Sam Adams went to a big meeting in a test of his effectiveness...and they had the meeting. But wait! Some big business leaders weren't there! Oh, they said it had nothing to do with Adams. But something COULD have happened! Really! And it would have been scaaaaandalous!
Oregonians like to brag about being independent types, probably more than they like actually thinking independently--but there's very definitely a libertarian, "Western" political stripe that paints down both sides of the party aisle, characterized chiefly by a healthy distrust of the central government. There's no shortage of ire towards state and local bureaucracy of course, but special jaundice is reserved for the feds.
However anecdotally you want to characterize that vague essence of Oregonians, it has manifested itself fairly clearly and regularly in a number of areas. Oregon singular method of voting has been the subject of high interest and scrutiny by the Bush administration and Karl Rove. Oregonians at various levels have fought the federal government on law enforcement issues like death with dignity, medical marijuana, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force. The depth of support for sticking it to The Man varies by issue, but for perceived health issues like med-mar, support is high for following state law within state borders.
At the same time, the unspoken undercurrent of the coming Democratic wave in Oregon politics is that the election stands to result in a regression in crime policy--previewed by the passage of Measures 51, 52 and 53, spearheaded by a competition between Measure 11 expansions, and featuring a future green light for get-tough meth policy from the AG-elect's office. If "soft on terror" is the main fear of national Democrats, state Democrats seem well primed to shrink in fright at the term "soft on crime."
And now I am really depressed to read the release last Thursday from Jeff Merkley's campaign, which (along with some meritorious suggestions) proposes a hard tack to the right on crime enforcement, including a fight for legislation to bring more federal prosecutors into Oregon to enforce federal laws. Tbat idea ought to chill a lot of Oregonians, left AND right.
(I have to say honestly it's not altogether prudent for Merkley OR Novick to take on Chuck Schumer just now, but there is some merit in seeking an alternative way to display your disagreement (as both men should and I presume do), perhaps by refusing money from his PAC. Schumer's vote through committee and (again, one presumes) Yea vote on the floor are pathetic pass-through capitulations. But Merkley can't bite the hand that almost literally feeds him, and Novick wants to avoid being the high draft pick who calls out the coach before he even has a contract.
This move obviously would hurt Merkley more, but it's getting to the point where somebody, sometime has to stand on principle for once. What's happening with Mukasey is simply absurd and appalling. Novick has called on Democrats generally not to cave, can't say as I've seen something from Merkley yet (could be wrong). Reid has said Mukasey will get a no vote from him; will they filibuster?
Heh--sorry for piggybacking on your thread, Darrel. - promoted by torridjoe)
Maybe it's just me, but if I was a Senate candidate who believed that waterboarding was torture and that Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey didn't satisfy my conscience that he would not only consider it as such but that he would vigorously investigate and prosecute any allegations of torture by whatever methods used to interrogate prisoners who are (or have been) in US custody, I just might not take calls from Democratic Senate Campaign Committee chairman Sen. Chuck "Yea!" Schumer, even if he'd promised me bags of cash.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
