In May I laid out for Spectator readers how former North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley, thanks to his powerful position, received: a break on a land deal; free air travel; free use of SUVs for himself and his family; and a high-paying job for his wife at NC State where she did next-to-nothing. Today the first indictment from a grand jury was handed down in the federal investigation — a massive 51-count, 64-pager accusing his right-hand legal counsel, Ruffin Poole:
The 64-page indictment alleges that Poole, 37, of Raleigh, extorted money from key Easley supporters and took corresponding action on environmental permits. It charges him with bribery, use of the mail in aid of racketeering, and says his actions deprived North Carolina citizens of his “honest services.”
The indictment says that Poole was a silent investor in development projects pushed by developers in Wilmington and Charlotte, making tens of thousands of dollars in profits on projects that he influenced in his government work. In his capacity as Easley’s legal counsel, he pressed government officials for action on environmental permits on the projects he invested in, the charges say.
Easley, a Democrat, received a $137,000 discount on a coastal lot in North Carolina, undoubtedly thanks to one of these deals. Next!
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online