Jack Lindley is right. There, I said it.

Doesn’t happen very often, but this time I have to admit it: I agree with Angry Jack Lindley, chair of the Vermont Republican Party.

For months, Angry Jack has been calling for an independent probe of outside campaign spending on behalf of Attorney General Bill Sorrell. Lindley alleges collusion between Sorrell and a Super PAC funded by the Democratic Attorney Generals Association. That group’s last-minute infusion of $180,000 probably saved Sorrell from defeat in last year’s Democratic primary. Sorrell has rebuffed Lindley’s calls for a special counsel; instead, he’s told Lindley to ask one of the county State’s Attorneys to take up the case. Lindley made his request to Addison County State’s Attorney David Fenster.

And that’s where things have been stuck ever since.

Fenster told VTDigger his office is still reviewing the request.

“None of our offices are structured in such a way where we have a ready staff to engage in these types of investigations,” Fenster said. “I don’t think that means we’re incapable of doing it, but it’s outside of our normal duties.”

“Still reviewing the request.” After months have passed. And Fenster isn’t terribly sanguine on the prospects for any action anytime.  

Still, Sorrell refuses to reconsider appointing independent counsel. He called doing so a “gross waste of $20,000 to $50,000” in taxpayer funds, partly because there’s no incriminating evidence to be found, he said.

In other news, the fox has searched the henhouse and reports that no chickens are missing.

Bill Sorrell is probably right. A Super PAC representing Attorneys General is smart enough to spend its money within the (generous) bounds of the law. But I’m on Angry Jack’s side here: it’s worth spending the money to eliminate all public doubts about whether our top law enforcement official broke the law.

That’s kind of important, no? $20,000 — or even $50,000 — is a small price to pay.

Besides, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sorrell is exaggerating, since his argument is based entirely on cost.  

7 thoughts on “Jack Lindley is right. There, I said it.

  1. and, he wants to spend taxpayer money to do his fishing.

    Besides, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sorrell is exaggerating, since his argument is based entirely on cost.

    While it may, or may not be an exaggerated monetary figure, the Attorney General’s reasoning is not based “entirely” on cost. Did you follow and read the vtdigger link you included in your post? From that link it’s easy to read from Nat’s post that Sorrell’s contention, beyond cost, is, in Nat’s words:

    that Jack McMullen had already tried and failed to pursue the same case in a court hearing. A Burlington judge dismissed the case for lack of evidence in late January.

    I then followed the link in Nat’s post to an earlier story, also written by Nat:

    http://vtdigger.org/2013/01/31

    However, instead of relying on Nat’s interpretation of the reasoning behind Judge Mello’s decision, I read the actual decision that was linked in Nat’s post, and Judge Mello concludes:

    Because McMullen has failed to prove that Dean acted as an agent of the Sorrell campaign, or that Sorrell or his campaign facilitated, solicited, or approved the CJF expenditures, this court must deny McMullen’s petition for a determination and dismiss his petition with predjudice

    https://www.documentcloud.org/

    Before taxpayers spend a dime on this fishing expedition, I think it would be incumbent on Mr. Lindley to respond to the McMullen decision and demonstrate that he has new evidence that could overcome the challenges illustrated in the Mello decision of McMullen’s case that was dismissed WITH prejudice.  

Comments are closed.