TPMMuckraker
Source: Richardson Probe "Was Killed In Washington"
Zachary Roth | August 27, 2009, 9:34AM
Share
Send to a friend!
Remember that federal investigation into an alleged pay-to-play deal that derailed New Mexico governor Bill Richardson's bid to be commerce secretary? Well, it's looking like the governor and his top aides will avoid charges.
But the way things shook out may only raise more questions.
A "person familiar with the investigation" told the AP that top Justice Department officials had made the decision not to bring charges, adding that the probe "was killed in Washington."
Investigators were looking into New Mexico's 2004 decision to award lucrative contracts for managing bonds transactions to CDR Financial Products. The firm gave over $110,000 to Richardson political committees between 2003 and 2005. One $75,000 contribution came less than a week before CDR was selected for the contract. The focus of the probe had been on the governor and three of his close aides or advisers, one of whom, David Harris, led the state finance agency that officially picked CDR.
When Richardson withdrew from contention for the commerce job in January, he said he expected to be cleared, but that the investigation would have delayed his confirmation.
So, did politics play a role in the decision to quash the probe? It would be a mistake, of course, to put too much weight on the off-the-record word of one anonymous source. Still, Richardson, a former Energy Secretary, UN ambassador, and chair of the Democratic Governor's Association, is about as well-connected as they come in Democratic circles, and his endorsement of Obama last year came at a critical time in the campaign. So it's not far-fetched to think that higher-ups at DOJ could have intervened for reasons that went beyond the impartial administration of justice.
But right now, we need to know a lot more before jumping to any conclusions.
Other Stories Featured at TPMMuckraker
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
- Fox News Threatens Pink Slips For On-Screen Errors
- Obama Meeting With Pelosi Tuesday As Troops Decision Crystalizes
- The Senate Big Picture
- A Purity Test For The GOP?
- Glenn Beck Announces He's Forming A '100-Year Plan'
- Sarah Palin Goes Rogue on Bill O'Reilly, Part 2
- Cheney: Obama Bow 'Very Upsetting' And 'Fundamentally Harmful'
- Al Gore: I'll "Outcrazy the Crazy"
- Affidavit From Ex-Editor Miniter Details Inner Workings Of Wash Times
- Gavin Newsom Throws Tantrum In First Interview Since Dropping Gov. Bid
- Fox News Threatens Pink Slips For On-Screen Errors
- Poll: Health Care Bill Could Hurt Dems -- And Not Passing It Would Be Worse
- Bachmann: 'I Don't Understand Why The Democratic Party Would Be Opposed To Me'
- A Purity Test For The GOP?
- Cheney: Obama Bow 'Very Upsetting' And 'Fundamentally Harmful'
- Glenn Beck Announces He's Forming A '100-Year Plan'
- Gavin Newsom Throws Tantrum In First Interview Since Dropping Gov. Bid
- Fox Host: Public Option Would Be Tax-Payer Funded Government Health Care Program
- What Did We Learn From Saturday's Health Care Vote
- Lieberman: 'I Don't Think Anybody Thinks That This Bill Will Pass'
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
sunnysteve
August 27, 2009 10:38 AM
This "anonymous source" is not validated beyond "familiar with the investigation". I am weary of credence being given to such random leads. If they want to help bring out the truth, they should be given a higher standard of evidence or ID before they are quoted. In the past, real news was broken primarily because someone had the guts to back up their charges. Daniel Ellsburg comes to mind.
Right now, Sibel Edmonds is repeating in a sworn deposition detailed charges against many politicians and federal officials in both parties. Her prior testimony to congress, heretofore suppressed as "state secrets", was found credible by both Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley, and they both called for a full investigation.
Yet, TPM and no other blog or MSM entity, except BradBlog has carried her story. If a former FBI translator, backed up by two senior senators from both parties, cannot get an audience in our public discourse, what justification is there for publishing an anonymous source?
If anyone cares, see www.bradblog.com for the full transcripts of her testimony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cosimo_rondo
August 27, 2009 1:18 PM in reply to sunnysteve
Re Sibel Edmonds, Hear, hear! If there was ever a story more appropos for TPMMuckraker, I haven't seen it. Even if one chooses to not believe her, the mere fact that someone (who has been deemed credible by high-ranking government officials no less), ANYONE, is going under oath to say these things is NEWS. I'd like to know why the MSM is so scared of this story. Surely it's no worse than all the torture stuff in the news? And like, where are the libel suits from the likes of Hastert?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunnysteve
August 27, 2009 2:58 PM in reply to Cosimo_rondo
Why is TPM afraid of this story?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
August 27, 2009 11:13 AM
1) I wonder if the AP reporter was able to confirm her anonymous source's contention with another source, isn't that standard journalistic procedure?
2) It would seem EXTREMELY foolhardy for the Obama/Holder DoJ to quash ANY investigation on political grounds given what that department had to endure under Bush. Richardson may be well connected but I'm not buying it until I see something more concrete.
www.therightquestions.blogspot.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Campesino
August 27, 2009 7:29 PM in reply to trblmkr
It would seem EXTREMELY foolhardy for the Obama/Holder DoJ to quash ANY investigation on political grounds given what that department had to endure under Bush. Richardson may be well connected but I'm not buying it until I see something more concrete
===========================================================
Well, it appears they already have with the dismissal of the Black Panther voter intimidation case. Makes no sense otherwise and DoJ is refusing to answer any questions about it
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
August 27, 2009 11:40 AM
Now where does he go, to get his reputation back Pugs?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
capemh
August 27, 2009 11:55 AM
A brief update to put this in context is appropriate.
This is the US Attorney's office formerly held by David Iglesias, who was fired by the Bush administration for, allegedly, not prosecuting specious voting fraud cases. Iglesias was replaced by former Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler (after Alberto Gonzales resigned who appointed Larry Gomez to take Iglesias' place. When the temporary appointment ran out, Gregory Fouratt, a career prosecutor, was appointed by administrative order from the US Federal District Court of New Mexico.
So, the list of people who would want to blame the killing of the investigation on "top Justice Department officials" is long.
I would doubt that a US Attorney appointed by the Court would be concerned about political pressure from the top. This investigation was already before a grand jury and they didn't produce indictments.
That doesn't mean that politics aren't involved, it just seems that the whole office had been politicized already so anyone implying political games were being played is late to the game.
I'm sure the past administration was looking for another Seigelman case and are angry that they were thwarted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
atticus1104
August 27, 2009 12:32 PM
Fox will still consider him guilty.
This is such an infuriating video. This is just another example of why Fox News is not an impartial player in any debate.
Must watch!!!
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2700
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
August 27, 2009 2:56 PM in reply to atticus1104
We get it, please stop spamming the threads with these.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Napoleon
August 27, 2009 12:44 PM
Maybe it should be pointed out that this same justice department killed the prosecution against Republican Sen. Stevens after a conviction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
August 27, 2009 1:45 PM
Another freebie "anonymous source".... AP and Washington Post specialty.
If somebody doesn't want to stake their name on a claim, why believe them? Or believe the AP reporter, who could show poor judgment or credulousness or political bias.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
astral66
August 27, 2009 1:54 PM
Considering that the Justice Department is in Washington, where else, pray tell, could it have possibly been killed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
August 27, 2009 3:00 PM
We need to actually investigate these people! Both sides of the aisle. Then there is no credence to any claims of "political motivation" from either side. CHECKS AND BALANCES PLEASE!
The Justice Department has killed so many investigations, it makes me wonder just what it is they do all day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 27, 2009 4:56 PM
"It would be a mistake, of course, to put too much weight on the off-the-record word of one anonymous source."
Umm, especially when all the "anonymous source" did was use words that are precisely synonmous with "Justice Department in charge of reviewing the matter closed the investigation."
Honestly, I had to check and see if John Solomon had gotten back into reporting and was working at TPM.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?