Heath Haussamen
“Hi. I’m not going to file criminal charges against your clients at this time, even though my investigation revealed wrongdoing. Know that I’m watching your clients. There are other investigations pending, and if circumstances warrant, I might restart this one as well.”
Though that’s not a direct quote, that’s essentially what U.S. Attorney Greg Fouratt wrote on Thursday in a letter to lawyers representing Gov. Bill Richardson and other potential defendants in the investigation into allegations of pay to play involving CDR Financial Products.
It was a highly combative letter that was inappropriate. Let me explain.
Whatever the reason charges weren’t filed, we live in a system in which people are innocent until proven guilty. The United States opted to not file charges against Richardson and others in this case and closed it. So, from a legal standpoint, Richardson and others are innocent, regardless of what Fouratt says.
That should be the end of the story, unless Fouratt wants to allege something about the motives behind the decision by his bosses in Washington to put an end to the case (if the decision was made in Washington, which is a lingering question), or unless he comes across new evidence in the future that leads to the reopening of the case.
Instead, we have the top federal law enforcement officer in New Mexico publicly alleging wrongdoing in this case while simultaneously informing those under investigation that he has no intention, at least at this time, of trying to prove in a court of law that such wrongdoing occurred.
Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, called Fouratt’s letter “stupid” in an interview with The Associated Press. That’s because, according to the article, “it makes allegations of corruption after the case is over.”
“That letter is an outrage and the U.S. attorney who wrote it should be fired. The case is closed. If he had charges, bring them. Otherwise, he should shut up. He’s being a politician now, not a prosecutor,” the news service quoted diGenova as saying.
The court of law versus the court of public opinion
Some will balk at me accusing someone else of not being fair to Richardson. I spend a great deal of time heavily scrutinizing the actions of the governor and his associates. I call him out when his actions create the appearance of impropriety, and I plan to continue doing that. I’m currently blacklisted by the governor’s office.
But I’ve been careful in the past to not accuse Richardson of actual wrongdoing. When asked during interviews with other media outlets, I’ve always said I don’t know if a crime was committed.
I think Richardson and his staffers have tried to toe the line — and sometimes leaned so far over it they almost fell over — in their efforts to raise money. Richardson was launching a presidential bid from a small state. He worked hard to raise every dollar possible.
CDR is one of the best examples of how those efforts have created an appearance of impropriety. The company gave $110,000 to two Richardson political action committees and his 2006 re-election campaign and won a state contract that paid almost $1.5 million — and the actual contract has vanished, if it ever physically existed in the first place.
But an appearance of impropriety doesn’t mean actual impropriety existed. Was there a handshake, a head nod, a handwritten note on a napkin through which Richardson or someone close to him agreed to give CDR the contract in exchange for contributions? I’ve never seen proof that there was. And the U.S. attorney doesn’t plan to try to prove that there was such an agreement in this case.
Fouratt’s job is to prove guilt in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion. Apparently, he needs to be reminded of that.