[b]Andrew Cuomo’s Watergate?[/b]
US attorney Preet Bharara has warned the governor that he could be investigated for obstruction of justice.

Stephen Gillers July 31, 2014  

The New York Times reports today that US Attorney Preet Bharara has warned Cuomo about obstruction of justice. This warning came after Cuomo on Monday defended his decision to disband the state Moreland Commission formed to investigate corruption in Albany. Cuomo’s defense responded to a detailed Times story about interference with the commission’s work by the governor and his people. Concurrent with Cuomo’s Monday defense, some commission members publicly said there was no interference. Cuomo repeatedly cited some of these statements. One of the commissioners whose statements Cuomo cited several times had previously said or implied the opposite.

Although the possible implications from Bharara’s letter are far less sordid than the burglary and bribery in Watergate, the lesson is the same: it’s not the crime but the coverup. Left unsaid is that a coverup can also be a crime.

It may all turn out to be innocent (see below), but surely Cuomo did not need this headache. He did not need to give a Bharara a basis to investigate him and his inner circle. It could have been avoided if Cuomo had made his defense without the chorus of commissioner statements.

Before Monday, I and others had been trying to figure out what statutes Bharara may have been looking at. Certainly, he could pursue evidence of corruption by state officials, including lawmakers, whom the commission had been investigating before it was dismissed, and about which it had files.

But Cuomo’s claim that he had a right to disband the commission, because it was “my” commission, did not seem to be a basis for federal investigation even if it was a politically foolish decision and defense.

Now, Bharara has a basis to investigate Cuomo himself and his aides. The statute would be 18 USC 1512(b) and possibly others. It is a crime to knowingly corruptly persuade another to keep information from an official proceeding. That’s the Arthur Andersen case in the Supreme Court, among others.

There is a sitting grand jury, which is an official proceeding, and former commissioners must have been aware that they could be witnesses even if not yet subpoenaed. Cuomo would also be so aware.

Bharara is warning Cuomo that any effort to coordinate a false story (of nonintervention) that these commissioners would tell the grand jury if called would be a federal crime. This is so even if their statements are so far only public statements, even if the effort fails because the commissioners don’t testify. The statute forbids attempts.

Now, as I say, it may all be innocent. The commissioners who spoke out, and who prior to doing so may have been contacted by the governor’s people to solicit their statements (Bharara says he “has reason to believe” they were), may have spoken truthfully with no “knowing corrupt persuasion” at play.

But Monday’s events put the governor is at risk in ways he was not before. The US obstruction statutes are incredibly broad. Whoever got the idea to coordinate the concurrent commissioner statements, assuming there was coordination and not a coincidence, and even if any such idea was entirely benign, may not have been aware of what they were handing Bharara for investigation.

Stephen Gillers July 31, 2014  

Once again DV does copy and paste.

Can you ever think for yourself and speak in your own words?


And why do you avoid speaking about the ads about Asterino and his alleged corruption.   Why are you refusing to provide any information to contradict these claims?

mikechristine1, your stalking of this guy is getting pretty old, and I've only been here a short time. Seriously, if the guy doesn't want to respond to you, then why not give it a rest?

Quoted from Alva White

mikechristine1, your stalking of this guy is getting pretty old, and I've only been here a short time. Seriously, if the guy doesn't want to respond to you, then why not give it a rest?

Agreed...I like MC1's knowledgable posts...but the badgering hurts their reputation.  

Quoted from Alva White

mikechristine1, your stalking of this guy is getting pretty old, and I've only been here a short time. Seriously, if the guy doesn't want to respond to you, then why not give it a rest?

He/she knows that I have him/her on ignore.  The stalking is one thing.  He/she chose to drag members of my family into these discussions -- attacking them for, creating usernames pretending to be them, etc.  He/she is not worth (IMHO) giving the time of day to.

Quoted from CICERO

Agreed...I like MC1's knowledgable posts...but the badgering hurts their reputation.  

ABSOLUTELY!!!
It's getting real old mc1. I don't even read mc1's posts that follow dvor. same old...same old...

Quoted from Alva White

mikechristine1, your stalking of this guy is getting pretty old, and I've only been here a short time. Seriously, if the guy doesn't want to respond to you, then why not give it a rest?

It's called discussion.   The guy makes a statement.  He is questioned about it.    But does not answer.

But truly, while this dem allegedly supports Asterino, for some reason he refuses any and all discussion on the ads that are running out there about Asterino's supposed corruption.  

Quoted from mikechristine1

It's called discussion.   The guy makes a statement.  He is questioned about it.    But does not answer.

But truly, while this dem allegedly supports Asterino, for some reason he refuses any and all discussion on the ads that are running out there about Asterino's supposed corruption.  

There's nothing written in the Board rules that says anyone HAS to DISCUSS anything. Why is every topic that you post in have to include a reference to DV? You do it obviously just to harass the person. You always make references to being adult or something to that effect, but frankly, it seems you're the one playing childish Junior High games. You obviously don't get how silly you look. Just for the heck of it why not try writing a post without a DV reference for a week or so. Or maybe bashing this person is "all ya got". Anyway I've said my piece and although you occasionally make valid points, I'm just not going to waste my time wading through the bull crap anymore to get to them.

Quoted from Alva White

There's nothing written in the Board rules that says anyone HAS to DISCUSS anything.

While that is true it is nice to see people back up their claims with evidence especially when they post it as a fact. MC1 has done his/her research and has given evidence on many of the issues discussed, in doing so he put many people here to shame who tried to say otherwise. Opinions are fine but without facts to back them that's all they are is opinions.

Anyway -- back to the topic of the thread -- Governor Andrew Cuomo is in a bit of "hot water."  While I nor any one else on this board knows all or even most of the facts, it didn't look good when Cuomo shut down the Moreland Commission.  It looks even worse now that a Federal Attorney has decided to pick up the commission's investigation and has added the possibility of witness tampering and obstruction of justice charges.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Anyway -- back to the topic of the thread -- Governor Andrew Cuomo is in a bit of "hot water."  While I nor any one else on this board knows all or even most of the facts, it didn't look good when Cuomo shut down the Moreland Commission.  It looks even worse now that a Federal Attorney has decided to pick up the commission's investigation and has added the possibility of witness tampering and obstruction of justice charges.

Good, I hope he gets sent down the road.

Or up the river.

He lost my vote when he enacted the Safe Act.

Quoted from Libertarian4life

Good, I hope he gets sent down the road.

Or up the river.

He lost my vote when he enacted the Safe Act.

I am not sure that it will go that far.  That is - to Andrew Cuomo being indicted.  Maybe some of his staff.

Personally - I think that the timing all this is meant to derail a possible Cuomo campaign for president in 2016.  Shutting down the Moreland Commission looks suspicious - but would have been ignored if Cuomo wasn't thinking about running for president.  Oh - and it is (IMHO) no coincidence that Cuomo might be running against Hillary.  The Clintons are well known for using their influence to neutralize opponents and possible opponents.

Controversy Over Cuomo's Use of Campaign Funds to Pay Attorney

    By: Nick Reisman
    7:45 AM
    ShareThis Facebook Tweet Email

Controversy Over Cuomo's Use of Campaign Funds to Pay Attorney

ALBANY, N.Y.-- As U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara conducts his investigation into gubernatorial interference in the Moreland Commission, Governor Andrew Cuomo has hired a lawyer. To pay for his legal bills, Cuomo is dipping into his $35 million campaign war chest, a move that has some good-government groups upset.

"I mean, call us crazy, but we have an old-fashioned notion that campaign contributions should be used for campaigns, nothing else," said NYPIRG Legislative Director Blair Horner.

Cuomo's office said paying white-collar criminal lawyer Elkan Abramowitz out of campaign funds avoids spending taxpayer dollars. But advocates say it's an inappropriate use of political money for public work.

"Under New York state law the taxpayers are supposed to defend, pay for the defense of public officials, subject to the attorney general's oversight. That would be more appropriate," said Horner.

And the lawyer isn't just representing Cuomo in the Moreland mess, but the entire governor's office while federal investigators look into whether top aides played a role in blocking or directing subpoenas. That concerns Susan Lerner of Common Cause, who says an employer shouldn't be hiring a lawyer for the entire office.

"Well, it's unusual for the boss to control the lawyers for the employees as opposed to the company or the employer itself. So it's unusual in that sense. And it's certainly an unusual use of campaign funds," said Common Cause Executive Director Susan Lerner.

As the Moreland controversy continued to swirl on Monday, Republican candidate for governor Rob Astorino released a video online reiterating his call for term limits.

"It's why we desperately need term limits in Albany for all parties," said Astorino.

While most Democrats around the state have been muted in their defense of Cuomo during the investigation, his retiring Lieutenant Governor Bob Duffy offered some support.

"I’ve been with the governor four years. While I have no direct or indirect knowledge of this stuff, I can tell you with my contact over the last four years, I have faith in him and it’s my expectation, my hope, that that faith will be maintained throughout this whole process. But I think we have to wait and see for the facts to come out," said Duffy.
- See more at: http://albany.twcnews.com/cont.....sthash.axEPWfUq.dpuf

Quoted from Libertarian4life

Good, I hope he gets sent down the road.

Or up the river.

He lost my vote when he enacted the Safe Act.

If only he was caught with a prostitute!!! Now THAT seems to be the only way a nys gov is sent down the road.

Politicians should have to pay for attorney representation out of their own pocket and not out of taxpayer
funds or contributions.