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.

House Grills Donovan

“Embattled” is a word you do not want waltzing around with your name on the eve of a U.S. Congressional election. “Embattled 5th District Congress candidate Chris Donovan,” the Register Citizen reported, “in a taping of WFSB TV’s ‘Face the State’ Thursday, said he has no plans to quit the race even if his campaign’s troubles start to adversely affect other Democrats and party leaders urge him to leave.

Mr. Donovan is under scrutiny by the FBI for campaign financing irregularities. His campaign finance director, Robert Braddock, is under arrest for having conspired to hide the identity of certain donors allegedly involved in influence peddling; and other Donovan connected officials, two of whom are directly connected with his U.S. Senate campaign, have been named in an affidavit supporting the arrest of Mr. Braddock.

Thanks to some impressive digging and nagging by manyreporters, the influence peddlers –tagged anonymously in the affidavit as CC1, CC2 and CC3 -- have now been identified as: Ray Soucy, a labor union activist and a vigorous supporter of Mr. Donovan lately suspended from his position as a correction industries supervisor at Cheshire state prison (CC1); a former “roll your own” smoke shop worker in Waterbury (CC2); and Joshua Nassi, Mr. Donovan’s fired campaign manager (CC3).

As the story unfolded, an uppity Governor Dannell Malloy, who has managed to shove his finger in many political and judicial pies, at first called upon Mr. Dovovan to make himself available to Connecticut’s media for questioning, demanding in rather stern tones that Mr. Donovan give “a full explanation of what he knows." Eventually, the governor calmed down.

Mr. Donovan and all the co-conspirators promptly lawyered-up. Stan Twardy, best known for his service in the administration of former Governor Lowell Weicker, the father of Connecticut’s income tax, was hauled in to conduct an in-house examination of the tangled web in the House Speaker’s office. Mr. Donovan hired a criminal lawyer, who advised her client that he was to respond to every media inquiry concerning the FBI investigation by saying he did not intend to comment on such matters, except to say, as he did repeatedly during the interview with Mr. House, that he was innocent of wrongdoing.

Apparently content that Mr. Donovan had done everything possible to satisfy the curiosity of Connecticut’s media – the same persistent interrogators who had forced the resignation from office of former Republican state Senate leader Lou DeLuca in a previous FBI sting operation-- Mr. Malloy, once an empathetic prosecutor, took a nap, convinced that Mr. Donovan had sufficiently teffloned himself. If Mr. Donovan were to excite among senators and the media the same sense of outrage that nudged Mr. DeLuca from office, the General Assembly would be burbling at this moment with whispers of hearings and impeachment.

"He's met the test of dismissing the individuals,” the governor said of Mr. Donovan.“He has said he had no prior knowledge. He's come forward to speak to the public," Malloy said. "I think the rest of it is up to the speaker and the public” … And Mr. House, who found himself face to face on Face the State with a political armadillo.

When Mr. House noted that neither the governor nor U.S. Representative Chris Murphy, whose seat Mr. Donovan hoped to commandeer, had endorsed him, the Speaker replied that Mr. Malloy was drawn to his Democratic primary opponent Elizabeth Esty, whose husband Daniel is Mr. Malloy’s Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), and then he tossed Harry Truman at Mr. House: “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”

Off in the distance, Leo Canty, one of the best know union operatives in the state, could be heard chanting, “There’s always people and events that will trip you up. This is just a slight trip in this race. … This is a hiccup and a glitch.” At an earlier union rally in Hartford, Mr. Donovan invoked the shade of Franklin Roosevelt.

“’I have my head held high. No one bought my involvement or my influence on any legislation, period,’ the embattled Speaker said. Touching on the controversy only in passing, Mr. Donovan said he wanted to talk about “fairness, dignity, respect. You take the first letter of each of them and what you get?-- ‘FDR.’”

Mr. Donovan boasted to Mr. House that he would win his primary against his two Democratic opponents, neither of whom is under investigation for possible influence peddling. When Mr. House gently prodded the Speaker, asking what would happen to his best laid plans should he be arrested, Mr. Donovan, according to Mr. House, “bristled.”

McMahon’s Surge

The most recent Quinnipiac poll, usually reliable, shows U.S. Senate Republican Nominating Convention choice Linda McMahon surging over primary challenger Chris Shays. Mrs. McMahon leads Mr. Shays in the primary poll by nearly 30 points, a considerable increase in March figures showing Mrs. McMahon leading Mr. Shays by a slender 9 points.

At the same time, Mrs. McMahon has reduced the lead enjoyed last March by U.S. Representative Chris Murphy, having reduced a 15 point Murphy lead to 3 points, a virtual tie.

The poll removes from Republican primary challenger Shay’s quiver an especially wounding arrow. Thus far, Mr. Shays has been arguing to the steady drumbeat of Connecticut’s left of center media that only he could successfully challenge Mr. Murphy in a general election campaign. March polling figures showed Mrs. McMahon lagging far behind Mr. Murphy, while Mr. Shays was snapping at his heels.

The most telling datum in the poll is Mrs. McMahon’s improvement among unaffiliated voters.

“McMahon's improvement in the general election against Murphy,” said poll director Douglas Schwartz, “is due to her better performance among independent voters. She now has 43 percent of these key voters, to Murphy's 41 percent, overcoming a 15-point deficit in March.”

This figure, reducing a deficit among Independents from 15 to 2 points, perhaps may tell Democrats in the state more than they would wish to know about the political orientation of Independent voters.

Mrs. McMahon’s surge comes at a time when the Shays campaign has brought in such heavy Washington hitters to stump for him as Karl Rove, once thought to be President George Bush’s brain, and Dick Morris, the pollster, author and columnist who made himself unwanted during the Clinton administration. Mr. McCain’s past association with Shays – the author of the equivalent of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill in the U.S. House – is particularly warm. Mr. McCain once told Mr. Shays that if the reform effort succeeded they would call the bill McCain-Feingold, and if it failed they would call it Shays-Meehan. Endorsements, evidently, do not have the same heft as in times past. Mrs. McMahon’s surprising surge has been attributed by many commentators to a raft of ads made possible by … wait for it … Mrs. McMahon’s obscene fortune.

The planted axiom in most media accounts of the race so far has been that Independents tend to be moderates, an assumption that assumes far too much. There are some indications that Independents, while formally unaffiliated with either of the two major parties, tend to be contrarians; and since the dominant political party in Connecticut – the ruling Democratic Party, ever since Dannel Malloy was elected Connecticut’s 88^th governor by a slender majority – is now virtually unchallenged, the Independent contrarian may be strongly attracted to vigorous candidates whose history of party attachment is slight.

As both state parties begin to lose influence over a shifting landscape of distressed voters, Independents on both sides of the ideological barricades seem to have adopted as their operative principle a boast of Archimedes, the great Greek military engineer: “Give me a place outside the world where I may place my lever, and I will move the world.” But no place outside either of the nation’s two political parties offers a politically effective footing.

The natural instinct of a potential fire victim caught inside a burning building is to escape the fire; once outside, proprietary interests take over and, assuming he is invested in the property, he may want to join the effort to quench the fire. Both the Democratic and Republican fire brigades are very much interested in recruiting Independents to join in their separate and quite distinct efforts to save the burning house. As the danger becomes more pressing, the choice becomes more imperative and fraught with dubious consequences.

We know very little about the political psychology that moves Independents. Academics would perform a great service for their country if they were to probe Independents with their “scientific” instruments with a view to determining what William James, the father of American pragmatism, might have called the “live options” at the molten core of the county’s political structure, especially now when many indicators suggest the nation – indeed, the entire Western world – may be tottering on the brink of a new political realignment.

We have had enough of polls. We need a serious scientific based analysis of the county’s shifting vital center

Soucy’s Song

"It's not what you know that hurts you, It's what you know that ain't so" -- Will Rogers

At this point in the FBI Donovan “sting” operation, what is not known is paramount – including whether the operation was a sting operation. Stories involving corrupt politicians have reporters and editors reaching for their adjectives: “In an apparentsting operation…”

In order to persuade a judge to issue a warrant for arrest, those seeking the arrest – in this case, FBI agents – must first present an affidavit containing information that certainly would be of interest to news editors and commentators. The assertions made in affidavits contain certifiable information on the basis of which an arrest is made, and these assertions, partly edited, soon find their way into news stories. The affidavit information may or may not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth For the purpose of launching an initial story, it is presumed to be reliable by many reporters and editors.

Consider the identity of CC1, noted in the affidavit securing the arrest of fired finance director Robert Braddock, part of whose business it was to haul in contributions for the 5^th District U.S.House campaign of present Speaker of the State House of Representatives Chris Donovan. Co-Conspirator 1 is not identified by name in the affidavit, nor are CC2 or CC3, identified as Co-Conspirators 2 and 3 in the affidavit.

In the news business, information flows into a story, once it finds its way into print, from a variety of sources, some more reliable than others. Then too, reporters and editors are supremely conscious of “changes in the force” when a major tremor such as the firing of a finance director shakes the political universe. The name of CC1, still unconfirmed by the FBI, surfaced following a) the appearance of the initial story, b) the identification of CC1 by reliable sources as Ray Soucy, a correction officer and labor union official politically active in Democratic Party politics, and c) the decoupling of Mr. Soucy from his union responsibilities.

The union official who showed Mr. Soucy the door did so because he had become a possible witness in a possible criminal case that involved his participation in corrupt activity.

In the FBI affidavit, Mr. Soucy is the proverbial cooperative co-conspirator; which is to say, he is cooperating with the FBI investigation by serving as a plant in the putative (note the adjective) “sting” (note the quote marks) operation. Someone prompted Mr. Soucy to ask compromising questions of Mr. Braddock, which are then recorded for use in an FBI affidavit, certainly seems to be a “singing canary” in a“sting” operation. Here, of course, we bump into Will Rogers’ admonition.

What prompted the canary’s song? Was it an injured conscience? A sudden resolution to rout all campaign contributors who play fast and loose with campaign financing law? Or was the canary’s participation in the possible sting operation necessitated by a threat of prosecution? At this moment, we don’t know it’s so, and we don’t know it ain’t so. But if it lives in a cage and eats FBI seeds and sings like a canary, it’s probably a canary.

What initially prompted the FBI investigation? Did the FBI detect an odor of corruption arising from Speaker Donovan’s office before Mr. Soucy was recruited to pass along to Mr. Donovan’s former finance director about $20,000 said to have been contributed by an investor hoping to persuade Mr. Donovan to kill state legislation that would have imposed a $5,250 yearly licensing fee and higher taxes on owners of roll-your-own tobacco shops?

Is it plausible that Mr. Donovan was unaware that a major contributor was dumping $20,000 into his campaign kitty for the U.S. House seat soon to be vacated by U.S. Rep Chris Murphy. No whiff of the $20,000 campaign contribution was detected by Mr. Donovan, says the strangely detached Mr. Donovan. What bunnies are clamoring around in FBI hats longing to be pulled out by the ears? Does the FBI have a case against the Democratic Party nominee for the U.S. Congress? Are leading Democrats in the state right in assuming, following Mr. Donovan’s public mea culpa, that there is no fire in the FBI smoke?

“There’s no fishing expeditions in corruption cases,” said former special FBI agent Mike Clark in a phone interview with Hugh McQuade of CTNewsJunkie “There’s always some type of predicative offense or allegation out there to bring the attention of investigators.”

Mr. Clark is well known in the state as the special agent who helped to secure convictions in corruption cases involving former Gov. John G. Rowland, former state Treasurer Paul Silvester and former Waterbury Mayors Joe Santopietro and Philip Giordano.

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.”