The Jaws That Bite, the Claws That Snatch

Dan Roberti, a Democrat running for the U.S House in Connecticut’s 5th District has called upon Democratic Party nominee Chris Donovan to quit the race.

"It is time for Chris Donovan to withdraw from the primary race for the good of the Connecticut Democratic Party and to protect the seat,”Mr. Roberti said following an indictment returned by a Grand Jury of Mr. Donovan’s former campaign director Robert Braddock. “He has hidden behind lawyers and never stepped up to explain how members of his campaign staff could have arranged conduit contributions without his knowledge."

Following Mr. Roberti’s invitation to withdraw, Donovan campaign manager Tom Swan declared that Mr. Donovan remains, even after damning disclosures, the strongest Democrat in the race.

Mr. Donovan was nominated at the Democratic convention for the 5^th District seat now occupied by U.S. Representative Chris Murphy, the Democratic Party nominee for the U.S. Senate seat that will be vacated when present Senator Joe Lieberman leaves office.

"We have a clear path to victory in August and November," Mr. Swan said.

Formerly a union organizer, Mr. Donovan has received the backing of union groups in the state that also have announced their formal support of Mr. Murphy’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate.

Mr. Donovan was nominated by his party when the campaign financing scandal was a tiny cloud no bigger than a finger tip on the political horizon. Following the nomination, the cloud has grown to menacing proportions and now threatens to blot out the shining Democratic campaign sun. Since Dannel Malloy was wafted into office on a promise of shared sacrifice, Connecticut has become, for all practical political purposes, a one party state, and there is little doubt among campaign watchers and too clever by half Democratic Party operatives that voter inertia and political force majeure exerted by office holding Democrats will largely determine the outcome of the upcoming elections.

The published indictment of Mr. Braddock does not help Mr. Donovan’s campaign. In both an earlier affidavit and now in the indictment, Mr. Braddock has been accused of conspiring to accept conduit campaign contributions, illegal donations falsely made by one person in the name of another.

It is, however, the disquieting details included both in the affidavit supporting Mr. Braddock’s arrest and the recently released Grand Jury indictment that should cause Democrats in the state to contemplate getting together a delegation of politicos that might convince Mr. Donovan to take a bullet for his party.

According to the Braddock indictment, the roll your own scandal was a spin off investigation of an earlier federal probe concerning “the way federal money has been spent to remove lead paint from the homes of low-income families.” Federal investigators had discovered that one of the people who had signed an illegal conduit check for the Donovan campaign was connected with a business under investigation in the lead paint removal program. In investigations of this kind, one thing leads to another, and soon the best laid plans of mice and men are torn asunder.

The scorpion’s stings in the conduit campaign contribution scandal remain hidden. Mr. Braddock’s indictment, according to one report, suggest more shoes are to drop, “including the possibility that the FBI arranged to have union activist Ray Soucy wear a wire to record a conversation with Donovan at the Democratic State Convention about accepting illegal contributions in exchange for killing a piece of legislation related to ‘roll your own’ tobacco shops.”

Mr. Soucy – like Mr. Donovan before his election to the House, a good portion of which has been spent as a Speaker steering bills through the legislative sausage maker– was a union operative before he was caught up in the FBI investigation centering on members of Mr. Donavan’s campaign staff. It was Mr. Soucy – co-conspirator 1 (CC1) in the affidavit that secured his arrest – who coached two roll your own store owners under investigation for a meeting with Mr. Donovan by cautioning them not to mention pending bills relating to roll you own shops in Connecticut. Eyes and ears were everywhere, Mr. Soucy advised: “… there is always people following this guy around, watching what he's doing …" During their meeting inside a restaurant, the tobacco owners, Mr. Donovan’s arrested former finance director and Mr. Donovan discussed“various issues relating to the roll your own industry in Connecticut,"according to the Grand Jury indictment.

Was Mr. Soucy, already deeply implicated in the scandal, wired during conversations he might have had with Donovan? Were other co-conspirators wired when they conspired with Mr. Soucy? Is Mr. Soucy, under threat of prosecution, the only singing canary serenading prosecutors? Where are the scorpion stingers? What does the FBI know, and when did it know it?

Barring leaks from behind the thus far leak-proof barricades, answers to these questions may not be forthcoming before the election. Until such questions can be answered with some degree of certitude, those within the Democratic Party who owe Mr. Donovan their silence and a studied indifference to possible political repercussions will consider themselves safe from provocative criticism.

And later?

Later is for later. In a free country, professional politicians who winked at the damaging data in both the affidavit securing the arrest of Mr. Braddock and the Grand Jury indictment can always plead ignorance. And in the bluest state in the Northeast, the penalties assigned for willful ignorance are mild and survivable.

Donovan, DeLuca And the Moral Obligations Of The General Assembly

Republican Senate Minority Leader John McKinney called upon Democratic Speaker of the House Chris Donovan to relinquish his position as Speaker following the arrest of his former finance chairman, Robert Braddock, for having concealed the identity of a donor, likely an FBI plant, who wanted to kill tax legislation on “roll your own” cigarette businesses in Connecticut.

Pointing to an affidavit used to secure the arrest of Mr. Braddock, Mr. Kinney said, “The facts and allegations in the affidavit are a grave violation of the public trust and cast a pall on all of the legislative activities Speaker Donovan has participated in since announcing his run for the U.S. Congress in the 5^th District,” a fairly damning assessment.

For his part, Mr. Donovan temporarily turned over the usufructs of his office to colleague Brendan Sharkey, who is expected to be appointed Speaker after Mr. Donovan’s term ends, and he has refused a call from one of his Democratic primary opponents, Dan Roberti, to step down as Speaker. After an exhilarating union rally in Hartford, Mr. Donovan pledged to carry forward his congressional campaign. Mr. Donovan’s defiance puts one in mind of former President Richard Nixon’s remark, even as Watergate was rising to his knees, that he was “not a crook.”

Two other Democratic congressional contenders vying for Senator Joe Lieberman’s soon to be vacant seat, former Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz and present U.S. Representative Chris Murphy, have made precious few comments concerning the arrest of Mr. Braddock and the possible political repercussions on Mr. Donovan’s bid for Mr. Murphy’s current seat. Mr. Donovan has refused, on the advice of his criminal lawyer, to answer any media questions that touch on Speakergate.

Governor Dannel Malloy nodded off after having called upon Mr. Donovan to make himself available for media interrogations; even God sometimes sleeps, thank God.

Mr. Malloy’s chief concern is to ensure the passage of the“roll your own” tax. After passing the tax increase to end all tax increases at the beginning of his term, the state budget – never in balance – once again is wading into the red, and more taxes are necessary to satisfy the ravenous appetite of the governor, the Democratic majority in the General Assembly and Mr. Malloy’s Malloyalists. Ben Barnes, the governor’s Office of Policy Management (OPM) chief, grows leaner and hungrier every day. The administration is depending upon Donovan factotum Brendan Sharkey, the Speaker’s handpicked replacement, to speed the plow during the upcoming special session, and he will not disappoint. Come Hell, high water or FBI investigations, Mr. Malloy will have his tax.

This is is not the first time the FBI had inflicted a sting operation on a member of the General Assembly. Only five years ago, Senator Lou DeLuca was forced to surrender his position in the General Assembly as leader of state Republicans after much ado about something was made concerning a domestic problem. While the Donovan mess has yet to mature, a comparison with the FBI sting operation that ensnared Mr. DeLuca is instructive.

An FBI agent, posing as a thug working for mob connected trash magnate James Galante, offered to“take care” of Mr. DeLuca’s son in law; in mob-speak, “take care of” and “bump off” are considered equivalent locutions. A Courant report at the time tells us: “On June 4, 2007, Senator DeLuca pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor threatening charge, received a suspended sentence, and was ordered to pay a fine. On June 12, 2007, DeLuca announced he would step down as leader of the Senate Republicans and was replaced by 28th District Senator John McKinney, son of late Congressman Stewart McKinney.”

Early in the DeLuca affair, Executive Director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) Tom Swam urged the Senate to investigate Mr. DeLuca“to dispel public doubts and suspicions, according to a report in the Waterbury Republican American published on CCAG’s internet site. Mr. Swan, recently chosen by Mr. Donovan to replace his fired campaign director, had sensed a fatal hesitancy in the General Assembly: “I think there is a hesitancy to act." Mr. Swan wrote Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr. and Senate Minority Leader John McKinney asking them to appoint a bipartisan committee to look into the DeLuca affair.

Although Mr. DeLuca was yet under investigation by the FBI, the General Assembly began a hearing to nudge Mr. DeLuca from the Senate. The co-chairmen of the investigating committee were senators Martin Looney, now a Democratic Majority Leader, and Andrew Roraback, now the Republican Party nominee for the 5t5h District i8n the U.S. Congress. Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz, tail spinning at the time into a full throated condemnation mode, made it plain that one of the purposes of the hearing would be to force the resignation of Mr. DeLuca:

“Because of Senator DeLuca’s unwillingness to do the right thing, Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams and Senate Minority Leader John McKinney had no choice but to call for the formation of this committee. I applaud both Sen. Williams and McKinney for creating a bi-partisan process for dealing with misconduct of its members.

“It’s unfortunate that Sen. DeLuca is making a bad situation worse by not resigning now. His actions will hit taxpayers in the wallet and further erode public trust in government officials, just as the state is preparing for municipal elections. DeLuca’s actions only increase the distrust and disgust many people have for their government and that results in, among other things, low voter turnout.”

Then Representative Edith Prague added her voice and prestige to the crowd insistantly calling for the resignation of Mr. DeLuca. This writer was among the first columnists to call for Mr. DeLuca’s resignation. The integrity of the Senate was the chief concern of the now retired Mrs. Prague. Mr. DeLuca, she insisted, should be questioned on oath by the Senate investigating committee to insure, under threat of perjury, that the senator would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth concerning his domestic affairs. The six member investigating committee, Mrs. Prague stressed, had been too patient with Mr. DeLuca:

“His resignation is absolutely required to maintain the integrity of the Senate. His testimony -- arguing whether it should be under oath or not under oath -- was absolutely outrageous. There should have been no question that his testimony and the questions and answers should be under oath. I was very upset watching that hearing, thinking what a mockery of the Senate and the bipartisan committee it was. ... I feel the committee is not being tough. Would he have that option in court? I don't think so. That man should resign from the Senate, and if he doesn't resign, we should expel him. If they don't vote to expel him, I will vote `no' on reprimand or censure.''

One cannot help but ask “Where is the sense of urgency in the Speakergate controversy?” Naturally, one would not expect a sense of urgency from Mr. Swan, who now finds himself on the staff of his old friend Mr. Donovan, but what of the other players in the General Assembly? Why has no one called for a hearing to investigate the corrupt and illegal activity swirling about the Speaker of the House?

Mrs. Prague’s strong moral voice is lost to the House now that she is no longer a member, but many of the other government officials who counseled Mr. DeLuca to leave office so that the honor of the General Assembly might be preserved are still walking the hallowed halls of the Capitol or running for re-election.

Is no one disturbed that a flaccid response from Democraticleaders in the General Assembly has anesthetized the moral outrage that should arise when a Speaker of the House is forced by an FBI inquiry to fire his arrested finance director, as well as aides identified in an affidavit as co-conspirators in a plot that besmirches the honor of the institution served by those who in the past rightly proceeded to call for a legislative hearing in a previous FBI investigation against Mr. DeLuca?

To be sure, it is important not to jump the gun. Mr. Donovan has not been advised that he is a target of an FBI investigation, the trip wire that did in the DeLuca case and should in very similar cases arouse the enmity of legislators concerned with the honor of the General Assembly.

Mr. McKinney has done well to call upon Mr. Donovan to surrender his position as Speaker. Others also have done so. Why has this seed fallen on such morally exhausted and parched ground?

While the FBI investigation is still in its larval stage, it is not too soon to demand that Mr. Donovan should leave his post as Speaker. Should Mr. Donovan decline to do so, the General Assembly is not without sanctions. The House especially might open a hearing so that members of the General Assembly may put questions to Mr. Donovan under oath – for precisely the reasons stated by Mrs. Prague. If under these circumstances Mr. Donavan’s lawyers advise him to avoid answering questions that may impact upon a possible criminal proceeding, he can avail himself of his Fifth Amendment right to decline to answer such questions on the grounds that any answer may incriminate him. For reasons that remain obscure, Mr. Donovan’s staff have brought dishonor upon every legislator in the General Assembly. The state legislature has a moral and institutional obligation to defend its own honor, and that defense, as was shown in the DeLuca case, need not wait upon the completion of the FBI’s case.

Prelude To A Presser

The Chris Donovan presser -- the first time the 5^thDistrict nominee of the Democratic Party for the US Congress had appeared to answer media questions concerning the arrest of his former finance chairman – was preceded by a prelude in which Donovan spokesman Gabe Rosenberg, laid down the ground rules for the presser.

Mr. Rosenberg read from the following statement:

“I have to take a minute to set some ground rules. This is a very serious matter, and we have treated it that way. Chris has retained attorney Shelly Sadin of Bridgeport to represent him, his campaign, and his legislative office, and she’s here in front.”

Ms. Sadin is a white-collar criminal defense lawyer associated with the Bridgeport firm of Zeldes Needle & Cooper.

“Chris’ lawyer,” Mr. Rosenberg continued, “has made it clear that while she recognizes the importance of Chris speaking directly to the public, he needs to take great care not to do anything that might interfere with an ongoing federal inquiry.”

A CTMirror report put it this way: “Donovan is under no legal prohibition to refrain from discussing the case, but his lawyer, Shelley R. Sadin, is intent on keeping on good terms with the U.S. attorney's office as Donovan tries to remain a witness, not a target.”

Mr. Rosenberg continued, “This includes speaking publically about matters that are not public,” a prohibition that seems over-broad. The kind of orange juice Mr. Donovan drinks in the morning might qualify as a matter that is not public. But Mr. Rosenberg qualified the qualifier: “That means no questions about what he told the FBI in a brief and voluntary interview last week, and what he will share with them as the investigation proceeds.” These restrictions beg for alternate investigations. Would it have been permitted had a reporter asked Mr. Donovan in what sense his interview with the FBI was “voluntary?”

The prohibitions having been presented, Mr. Rosenberg went on to tell the media what the Speaker would, on the advice of his lawyer, be inclined to share with the media gathered to question him: “Chris can and will tell you directly what he has already communicated through his staff: that he did nothing wrong; that he is shocked and disappointed by the allegations against his former campaign staff; and that he intends to promptly and freely cooperate with the government, so that it can complete its work,” mostly matters already covered by other flack catchers, among whom may be numbered Tom Swan, the director of the Connecticut Citizen’s Action Group (CCAG), an organization once committed to consumer protection that now rents out Mr. Swan to left of center Democratic politicians seeking office.

Mr. Rosenberg asked for Mr. Donovan the same respect he media had afforded Republican Party leader Larry Cafero, who was also questioned by the FBI, and offered a cautionary note: “I will remind you now, Chris Donovan has not been accused of any wrongdoing.”

Righto! The FBI investigation, details of which Mr. Donovan has pledged not to reveal, is yet in its early stages. Investigations of this kind, particularly when they are accompanied by parallel inquiries, tend to bottom out as people – though not, of course, the lawyer-up Speaker, who does not wish to compromise the FBI investigation – chatter away. It is perhaps too early to suppose that one who “has not been accused of wrongdoing” is therefore innocent of wrongdoing. In the early stages of former Governor John Rowland’s impeachment, Mr. Rowland was thought by those connected with his campaign to be innocent of wrongdoing.

“None of us committed to this campaign,” Mr. Rosenberg concluded,“would be here if we were not convinced of his honesty, his integrity, and his desire to serve the families of the 5^th Congressional District. With that, here’s Chris Donovan.”

Considering the prohibitions imposed upon Mr. Donovan by Ms. Sadin, only about ten percent of the candidate for the U.S. Congress stepped forward to handle the questions posed by a narrowly restricted media.

Even so, some questions bordered on dangerous ground. And when one or anoher reporter was presumptuous enough to put unwanted questions to Mr. Donovan, now thoroughly lawyered-up and armor plated, the imprudent queries were batted away by the vigilant Mr. Rosenberg, who popped up from time to time to warn a straying reporter that he was violating the ground rules.

The associated Press noted in a report: “Gabe Rosenberg, Donovan's spokesman, interrupted the news conference several times to say the speaker will not discuss details of what he may know about the investigation, including his interview with the FBI.”

A YouTube of the presser may be found here.

Donovan And The Politics Of Personal Destruction

It always helps if the person slated for destruction assists in the operation. In this regard, Speaker of the State House of Representatives Chris Donovan has been an obliging subject.

Mr. Donovan missed his all-important curtain call – a non-negotiable demand form Connecticut’s left of center media that he present himself instantly to answer some nagging questions -- instead sending the director of the Connecticut Citizens Action Group (CCAG), Tom Swan, to catch the flack coming his way after the finance director for Mr. Donovan’s now faltering campaign for the U.S. House in the 5^th District was arrested in what appears to be a successful FBI sting operation.

Mr. Donovan has hired two lawyers to help him weather the coming storm, the resourceful Stan Twardy, a political operative in the administration of then Governor Lowell Weicker, and a stand-by criminal lawyer.

Mr. Donovan fired his corrupted finance director and replaced his campaign manager, Josh Nassi, with Mr. Swan, who for many years has been at the helm of CCAG, trying his best to turn what had been a consumer oriented organization into an annex of the left wing of the state’s Democratic Party. Mr. Swan has been largely successful. When he floated from CCAG to chief flack catcher in the Donovan caravan, the transition was effortless.

Mr. Twardy, a past contributor to the campaigns of former U.S. Senator Chris Dodd and former U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, has been around the corrupt finance manager block before. The former U.S. Attorney was hired by Mr. Shays, now running for the same U.S. House seat coveted by Mr. Donovan, when Mr. Shays’ campaign manager, Michael Sohn, was imprisoned for a little more than three years after having pled guilty on a 12-count indictment charging him with having embezzled about $250,000 in campaign funds.

Due to be released from prison in 2013 and poorer than a church mouse, Mr. Sohn finds himself unable to pay off the creditors who had invested in Mr. Shays’ failed congressional campaign. For his part, Mr. Shays has said the creditors should apply to the indigent Mr. Sohn – not him – for payment of bills due.  

Doubtless, one of Mr. Donovan’s two lawyers have told the beleaguered Speaker of the State House that he should put a brick on his tongue until they are able to peek at the cards prosecutor are holding close to their chests. Better to incur the disfavor of a dyspeptic media than to say something publically that may lead to unwanted legal misfortune, eh?

The horns of the dilemma upon which Mr. Donovan finds himself tossed are usual in such cases: Either Mr. Donovan knew what his finance chairman was up to and therefore is legally complicit, or he was not watching the campaign store and therefore is incompetent; in either case he is not fit to represent the people of the 5^th District in Congress.

One of Mr. Donovan’s Republican opponents, Mark Greenberg, made the point tellingly in a press release following a media sidewalk interview during which Mr. Donovan planted himself firmly on one of the two horns.

"Let me be very clear about this,” Mr. Donovan said.“At no time did I know that anyone might have been trying to funnel illegal contributions to my campaign. No one ever made a deal with me as a quid pro quo."

Mr. Donovan, who as Speaker of the state House steers bills though the legislative process, said he was unaware of the bill, which would have raised $3.4 million a year from about 15 roll-your-own cigarette machines in the state. The campaign contribution accepted by Mr. Donovan’s fired campaign finance chairmen was supposed to have resulted in the bill’s dismissal, ultimately a casualty of an end of session legislative pile-up.

Reading from a statement that possibly passed under the noseof his criminal defense attorney, Mr. Donovan said of the bill during his sidewalk interview, “I did not know about it at any point during the legislative session." At the same time, Mr. Donovan adamantly refused – on advice of council? – to discuss the corruption investigation that led to the arrest of his campaign finance director, giving Mr. Greenberg an opportunity to launch the standard rejoinder:

"By refusing to discuss the corruption investigation into his campaign, Chris Donovan raised more questions than he answered. Two days ago, I called on Chris Donovan to resign as Speaker and suspend his campaign for Congress and I continue to maintain that he should step down. Donovan either knew or should have known that this illegal activity was occurring in his campaign. Whether this is a gross violation of the public trust or gross mismanagement, the people of Connecticut deserve better."

Mr. Greenberg was not alone in calling upon Mr. Donovan to resign as Speaker. In a Sunday editorial, the Hartford Courant reminded everyone that it had called upon Mr. Donovan to resign his position as Speaker when he had opened his 5^th District campaign: “Mr. Donovan should have stepped down as speaker the minute his campaign for Congress began in order to avoid the inevitable conflicts of interest or appearances of conflict that this fund-raising scandal has brought to the fore.”

The score so far? Mr. Donovan is not stepping down as Speaker; he has temporarily shifted the responsibilities of his office to his handpicked successor, Brendan Sharkey. Mr. Donovan will not in future talk about the corruption issue under litigation; and he is soldiering on in his bid for the U.S. Congress.

That’s three strikes.

Frothing

The Donovan sting, now referred to by Tom Dudchik of Capitol Report as “Speakergate,” continues to froth.

CC-1 (Co-Conspirator 1), the FBI canary who helped to turn the tables on Robert Braddock, the former finance director of Speaker of the State House Chris Donovan’s U.S. House bid, has now been identified as Ray Soucy, a correctional industries supervisor at the Cheshire prison complex, according to a Hartford Courant story.

Just before Mr. Donovan was about to be pummeled over the weekend by Connecticut’s media, the Speaker, who has rejected calls that he quit the state House and terminate his campaign for the U.S. House in Connecticut’s 5th District, fired Mr. Braddock and hired Tom Swan, the director of the left of center Connecticut Citizen Action Group, to replace his former campaign manager, who was also fired.

Even as Mr. Swan stepped before the Media to say he had looked Mr. Donovan squarely in the eye and asked him point blank whether he was in any way connected with this sordid “Speakergate” business, the media in the crowd were growing restive.

Where was Donovan? Why do we have to endure this flack?

Mr. Swan assured everyone that Mr. Donovan was innocent and unblemished:

“I want to start off and say unequivocally, Chris did nothing wrong, and if I thought for one second there was a question about that, I wouldn’t be standing here today. I have a beautiful, 15-month-old daughter that I’d much rather be hanging out [with] than talking with all of you wonderful people here today.

“When I sat down with him, and I’ve known Chris for 18 years now and worked very closely with him, I looked him right in the eye and I said,‘Is there any truth to this and did you do anything wrong?’ And he looked me in the eye, and he said no. I agreed to take over this campaign because in my 18 years in this state, nobody has done more to clean up corruption and fight to protect democracy and working families than Chris Donovan.”

Mr. Swan said Mr. Donovan was sometimes disappointed, other times angry and more than anxious to get to the bottom of this mess –preferably, one supposes, before his campaign for the U.S. House disappears in a puff of media smoke. Surely, Mr. Donovan would not lie to his old friend Mr. Swan.

“In the fight of his political life, Chris Donovan blew what could be his last chance” one commentator wrote.“The House Speaker and 5th District Congressional candidate embroiled in an ugly campaign scandal should have stepped up to the podium Friday afternoon and declared that he had been betrayed by trusted staff members. He had a shining chance to declare not only did he know nothing about the money-for-influence scheme the FBI alleges his trusted aides were up to their necks in, but that he is outraged.”

Any lawyer – for a fee, of course – would be happy to explain why Mr. Donovan had rented out his tongue to Mr. Swan following the arrest of his campaign finance director on a charge that he had illegally concealed the source of funds pouring into Mr. Donovan’s campaign.

It’s like this: No one knows the full extent of what the FBI discovered in its investigation. And in the absence of such details, the published revelations in the affidavit used by an FBI plant to secure an arrest warrant for Mr. Braddock aside, anything Mr. Donovan says to the media may be held against him in a court of law.

It is only a matter of time before Mr. Swan trots out the tried and true media swerve in defense of his old friend: Mr. Donovan finds he is unable to respond personally to questions relating to “an ongoing investigation.”

One of the lawyers hovering about Mr. Donovan is former U.S. Attorney Stanley Twardy, hired by the Speaker to investigate all contributions to his campaign for Congress. Like Mr. Swan, Mr. Twardy is a battle scarred veteran of political campaigns, having served as chief of staff to Governor Lowell P. Weicker from January 1991 through February 1993. It will be recalled that then Governor Weicker forced his income tax through a somewhat tax shy legislature in 1991, heady times for Mr. Twardy. Presently Mr. Twardy is a Managing Partner of Day Pitney LLP and heads the firm’s White Collar Defense and Internal Investigations practice group.

If Mr. Twardy has not yet advised his client to button up until the discovery process has flushed out all the potentially incriminating evidence against him, if any, he is not earning his salary at Day Pitney. There is little reason to suppose that Mr. Donovan’s conscience will in coming days allow his valor to overcome his legal and political discretion.

However, a valorous General Assembly might well consider a congressional hearing to bring the facts of the case to light. There is no reason why multiple inquiries should not go forward at the same time. An investigation by Mr. Donovan’s peers may help in restoring Connecticut citizen’s shattered belief in “government’s ability to carry out its responsibilities,”Governor Malloy’s sorrowful expression when news first was brought to him concerning “Speakergate.”

Will Lieberman’s Endorsement Of Shays Matter?

An endorsement by current U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman in the race for the senate seat he will vacate when his term expires just might, unlike the usual light-as-air endorsements of has-been politicians, carry some weight.

Mr. Lieberman is loathed by Democratic leftists in Connecticut. Hell hath no fury like that of a progressive scorned.

Progressive radicals, feeling their oats, were prepared to rejoice heartily and even strew a few rose petals at the senator’s feet had he yielded to them following the Lieberman-Lamont primary, which was won by progressive heartthrob Ned Lamont. Mr. Lieberman, however, was not prepared to go quietly into that good night of whipped politicians; and so, having lost the primary, he challenged Mr. Lamont in a three way general election – and won.

This was not the way to win friends and influence Connecticut progressives. If the progressive movement in Connecticut had an imam in it, a political fatwa would have been urged against Mr. Lieberman by progressives such as former Lamont campaign director Tom Swan, the head of the far left Connecticut Citizens Action Group (CCAG).

Mr. Lieberman’s political activity in the senate following his general election defeat of Mr. Lamont has only enraged the progressives further. While Mr. Lieberman, a professed Independent, has caucused with Democrats in the Senate, he has, on some issues of importance to progressives -- war and peace, for example -- gone his own way. Mr. Lieberman’s primary loss to Mr. Lamont , the senator claimed, liberated him to be his own man. In this, he has followed in the wake of another party-independent, former senator and governor, no-man-but-yours Lowell Weicker, infamous for using his party as a foil to advance his own political interests.

Now comes what may be Mr. Lieberman’s final bow-out blow – a possible endorsement of Republican Chris Shays for Mr. Lieberman’s’ soon to be open seat. According to a recent report in “The Hill,” Mr. Shays, who has announced he intends to challenge in a Republican primary former WWE CEO Linda McMahon, is a longtime friend and colleague of Mr. Lieberman.

Mr. Lieberman does carry some weight in what used to be called moderate wing of the Democratic Party, but in recent years that wing has been clipped by lean and hungry progressives, even as the moderate wing of the Republican Party has moved rightward. The political gap between Republicans and Democrats over the past couple of decades has not become deeper or wider; but as bridges continue to be burned, the gap becomes more and more unbridgeable. Friendly gestures across the political aisle are now considered treacherous displays of near treason by those in warring camps with knives in their brains. The vital center now has been cleft in two. There are two moderate centers, a remnant in New England within the Republican Party and a Southern moderate faction within the Democratic Party.

Mr. Shays is part of New England’s nearly vanished moderate Republican nub, and though he has said his eyes are fixed on the general election prize, he must get over the hump of a primary to compete in a general election. A world has changed since Mr. Shays last strutted his moderation in the U.S. House of Representatives. Losing a race to present U.S. Rep. Jim Himes in 2008, Mr. Shays, who following his defeat left Connecticut for points south, became the last Republican moderate in New England, the first time in almost 150 years that no Republican represented the New England states in the nation’s capital.

Some have accused Mr. Shays of being a carpetbagger, a foolish claim easily disposed of. The real sticking point is that, the political vectors having changed radically since Mr. Shays left the congress, time may have made of moderation a pointless exercise in futility.

Where is the point where a moderate may safely stand as Connecticut and the union both totter towards a Grecian denouement?