| Friday, January 27, 2006 |
U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie announced this week that he would not pursue corruption allegations against New Jersey's top political boss because of bungling by the state Attorney General's Office. But this scandal cannot end there. Just who is responsible for the botched investigation, and how will they be held accountable? Is this just another case of politics as usual in the Garden State? Governor Corzine's choice for state attorney general, Zulima Farber, has said she'll make corruption her top priority. And Mr. Christie has pointed out the state still has two years to reexamine the Norcross case before the state statute of limitations runs out. Before her office can look into any new allegations of corruption, it has to determine who flubbed the earlier investigations. Mr. Christie recently wrote to witnesses in the case: "The illogical approach taken by the Attorney General's Office lends itself to a number of damaging inferences, including the protection of political figures and the manipulation of evidence."
Read that sentence again. "The protection of political figures": It goes to the core of every cynic's worst suspicion of state government. Ms. Farber must investigate this further, with her own team, and get to the bottom of it. At this point, the A.G.'s Office will say only that it is making sure that "appropriate corrective action was implemented." When asked if anyone would be held accountable for this mess, a spokesman declined comment. That sure sounds like circling the wagons at a time when they ought to be on the attack.
Here's what the fuss is about. Five years ago, a South Jersey councilman named John Gural went to state prosecutors, claiming local power brokers were trying to get him fired from his job as project manager with a politically connected engineering firm. He agreed to wear a hidden device and record conversations he had with Democratic Camden County boss George Norcross and other politicos. Over two years, he taped 330 hours of conversations, including 1½ hours with Mr. Norcross. Mr. Gural has claimed that the tapes include the county boss offering him bribes to vote against the reappointment of one of Mr. Norcross' political adversaries as a borough attorney. Mr. Gural has also claimed that after Democrat James McGreevey became governor in 2002, the investigation began to go nowhere. Indeed, the state Attorney General's Office not only closed the investigation two years ago, but it has tried to release as little of the damaging recordings as possible. According to Mr. Christie, both Democratic and Republican administrations were responsible for the foul-ups, with the most damaging missteps occurring early on, when Republicans were in charge.
For instance, the A.G's Office authorized Mr. Gural to record all his conversations all day, even though most of the exchanges were with people who had no involvement in the probe. But when he was attending a local Democratic political event where Mr. Norcross was expected, he was not allowed to secretly tape-record the conversations there. In other words, the A.G.'s Office got it exactly backward. All of this raises three big questions. Just who bungled the investigation? Do they still work in the Attorney General's Office? If so, why? If the Senate confirms Ms. Farber next week, her top priority must be to resolve these questions and ensure that the integrity of the Attorney General's Office has been restored. Right now, that office at best looks like a bunch of political hacks.