Friday, 11 August 2006

Fletcher Will Not Have To Stand Trial Until After He Leaves Office

Well, The judge made his ruling today. He found that Fletcher can not stand trial for any wrong doings that occur during the course of his day to day activities as governor.

“Because it is alleged to be an official act, they cannot proceed against the governor until he’s either impeached or out of office," Melcher said.

Ok, so this is not what I was expecting, but it is an interesting ruling. What I gather Melecher is not saying is that the Governor can be prosecuted for any crime while he is Governor. Only those activities that are in his capacity as Governor to do. What this means is that since one of the things he does as Governor is hire people, he can't be prosecuted for any hiring decisions he makes. He would have to be impeached for misconduct in office before he could be charged.

Now if a Governor were caught selling crack on the corner of 3rd and Main in Frankfort at 2AM, he could be prosecuted since that was not part of his official duties as Governor.

What does this all mean?

For Fletcher: This is probably the worst decision that could have happened to Fletcher. Instead of the case being resolved it is going to hang around until he is no longer Governor. The papers are going to spin this as the Governor being "above" the law which is ridiculous, but the perception will probably stick. The ruling will likely cause a serious primary fight that will culminate the brewing Republican civil war.

For the Democrats: They are now in an interesting position. If they believe Fletcher is guilty, isn't it there responsibility to bring impeachment charges against the Governor? If they don't they will appear to not believe the charges are serious. If they do, they are going down a slippery slope that can only end badly. Either sympathy for the Governor will rise (like what happened to Clinton) or they will risk opening this can of worms for any future Democratic Governor. They really have no option but to pass.

For the Democratic Gubernatorial Candidates:

Chandler: I don't think Chandler will run. He is going to have to answer why he didn't prosecute merit violations during the campaign. I think he is way to comfy in his role as U.S. Representative to open himself to the abuse

Henry: He is clearly the strongest Democratic candidate left standing. But does he have support in the party?

Stumbo: He wants to run, but will probably lose. He has too many skeletons in his closet to be able to win in the general. And Democrat's inaction on impeachment will hurt his cause. I think his rank opportunism will come back to hurt him as well.

Posted by elendil at 4:04 PM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (0)

Fletcher's Hearing Today

Today is the day where Fletcher's team has a hearing on his motion to dismiss. We'll update as soon as we hear anything from the proceedings.

What is curious is that the Courier-Journal ran a story yesterday about another AG filing. This one explaining why Fletcher's administration hadn't been singled out for prosecution

Prosecutors from the Attorney General���s office said in a court filing Thursday, ���It would be improper for the Commonwealth to excuse the Defendant���s criminal conduct because other politicians before him may have committed similar crimes.���

Yeah we have already heard that a number of times. Why are they covering this again? It almost seems like the Courier is trying to bolster this argument for some reason.

I think there may be good reason the AG's office and the Courier are worried about it. Back in the 60's on of the major rulings in the Kentucky Supreme Court was the "Heck Case". This was a case where the prosecutors unfairly singled out one store for prosecution. The supreme court in that case ruled that one can not be selectively chosen for prosecution of a law without prosecuting everyone.

At first the Courier wanted us to believe that since the AG indicted a number of people this can't apply. But in the Heck case a number of people from the Heck store where prosecuted. No the problem is no Democrat was ever prosecuted the Merit system laws in the last 45 years.

But the most damning evidence in favor of such a ruling is the actions of Stumbo himself. In 2003, he was AG when the Personnel Board ruled that Patton's administration was involved in some nefarious hiring schemes. The statue of limitations didn't run out on that case until well into Stumbo's tenure in the AG's office. Yet neither Chandler nor Stumbo decided to prosecute the case.

We'll see how this all shakes out.

Update

The Lexington Herald a story today that almost begs the judge not to throw out the case.

Even the perceived integrity of the judicial branch is at stake, observers say.

"I think if you ask most voters, they want a public trial and want everything aired out because there's been so many denials," said Stephen Horner, a legal analyst and former juvenile justice judge from Louisville. "If they don't get it, it looks like good ol' boy politics prevailed."

"I think it would look bad for both the executive branch and the judicial branch."

What the hell? Why would it be bad for either branch? If the judge throws it out it can mean only one thing. That the judge looked at the evidence and saw nothing there to convict Fletcher. Any other explaination is pure spin and poppy cock. This story has become quite sureal as the evidence mounts that Fletcher's case may be thrown out.

Posted by elendil at 9:28 AM in Kentucky Politics
Responses (0)