Monthly Archives: April 2019

Patronage

Posted by on 2019-04-29 No comments

It’s debatable if county jails do much to turn peoples’ lives around. But they certainly excel as institutions of patronage. In communities where jobs are scarce, where else can a high school graduate with basic skills make $46K a year with benefits? The sheriff as patrón is in a position to hire a lot of employees and make a lot of friends. The Bristol County Sheriff, for example, is the top employer in New Bedford and the third largest employer in Dartmouth, Massachusetts.

Consider the staffing in Massachusetts jails. The statewide staff-to-prisoner ratio in county jails is 1:73 and Bristol County’s ratio is slightly less than that. In personnel costs alone, it takes 6,629 employees at a cost of nearly half a billion dollars to lock away 11,480 prisoners in the state’s 14 county jails. Most of the incarcerated — the majority who are simply awaiting trial — would be better-served by drug rehabilitation and vocational programs, which jails don’t even pretend to offer. And society would be better-served by actually doing “corrections” rather than simply warehousing human beings.

But jails are not in the business of rehabilitation. They seem to function mainly as job and pension factories.

Padding the Payroll

In 2015 Public Consulting Group (PCG) visited six Massachusetts jails and found “wide variance in key costs metrics amongst sheriffs, even when comparing counties of similar sizes and prisoner counts.” The study, “Sheriffs’ Funding Formula,” was issued in 2016 and notes:

“A review of 2013-2016 inmate counts found a decline in inmate populations over the last three years. Despite a population decrease of just over 14% during that period, state funding for sheriffs has increased by nearly 10% over those same three fiscal years.”

Yes, you read that correctly. Jail staffing and construction is actually increasing — even though fewer people are being incarcerated. Yet at this moment there is at least one bill in the state Legislature trying to expand the Middlesex County jail. The bill’s sponsor prefers to call her jail expansion project a “justice complex.”

PCG’s study noted that the Massachusetts sheriffs’ officer-to-prisoner ratio (1:2.48) is higher than that in New York state (1:2.53), New Hampshire (1:3.02), New Jersey (1:3.75), or Pennsylvania (1:4.49). According to PCG, the problem is bloat among the higher ranks at county jails:

“In reviewing the ratio of staff to supervisors in each of the facilities, we found that many sheriffs have a higher number of high ranking supervisors. While our research did not identify a consistent recommendation for correctional facilities, studies in the public safety, probation, and corrections field typically recommend a “span of control” for supervisors of between 5-7 subordinates. While the sheriffs fall very close to this range for the ratio of Correctional Officers to Sergeants, the top end of the chain of command shows ratios as low as 1.58 (Lieutenants to Sergeants) and 1.87 (Captains to Lieutenants).”

But without make-work jobs for corrections supervisors, how else is a patrón supposed to help his friends?

The 2018 Bristol County Sheriff’s Department salary data from the Office of the Comptroller includes 739 records representing 675 individuals and 64 promotions in rank. In the entire sample there are 34 Deputy Sheriff records, 46 Lieutenants, 27 Sergeants, 316 full-time Corrections Officers, 90 part-time Corrections Officers, and a variety of other professional roles. 54 were full or part-time contractors, many with the position of “Deputy” or “Instructor.” The sheriff’s top employees walk off with $3.9 million a year — 10% of the entire payroll. And they’re smart enough to thank their benefactor. Many of these same names are found in Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) reports as contributors to the Hodgson campaign.

The damage that patronage does in a payroll-intensive system like a county jail cannot be over-estimated. According to Massachusetts Comptroller data, payroll, overtime, roll call, holiday, vacation, and sick-leave buy-back pay account for 86 percent of the operation of the Bristol County jail:

Patronage is a Massachusetts tradition

But patronage is a hallowed Massachusetts tradition. As Shira Schoenberg wrote in MassLive, the “Massachusetts governor for a time had an ‘Office of Patronage’ dedicated to helping people apply for state jobs.” The office existed at least until 2002. Boston Mayor Curley’s administration ran on patronage, More recently, Paul Celluci’s patronage appointee to MassPort, Virginia Buckingham, was forced to resign after 9/11 hijackers commandeered two planes from her airport.

In Bristol County, Massachusetts, accusations of political patronage have long dogged Sheriff Tom Hodgson. When Hodgson ran for Sheriff the first time in 1998 after an interim appointment by William Weld, the Standard-Times endorsed his opponent, Rep. Joseph McIntyre. McIntyre accused Hodgson of running a “patronage bazaar” in the sheriff’s office, and the newspaper’s endorsement slammed Hodgson for practices ranging from “hiring of publicity agents to his fattening of the payroll with patronage employees, who repay him with campaign contributions that he encourages.”

Both of Hodgson’s challengers in 2010, John Quinn and Alan Garcia, charged Hodgson with trading jobs and pensions for political support. During one campaign debate, Quinn said, “the Sheriff has spent millions of dollars on unnecessary legal fees to three lawyers who are his personal friends and political contributors. He has hired dozens of high paid administrators in unnecessary patronage jobs. These people will retire on a hidden budget that will cost our communities millions of dollars in unseen pension payments for decades to come.” When announcing his candidacy, Alan Garcia took a similar swipe at Hodgson: “We will be promoting people inside the prisons based on performance and merit, not political maneuvering or political patronage.”

In 2008 the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct forced Judge Michael Livingstone off the bench for ethics violations. Almost immediately, Tom Hodgson snapped up Livingstone to run his jail’s medical program. Why? It was a simple case of political back-scratching. According to the Standard Times:

“The politically connected Livingstone was previously the legal counsel to the New Bedford City Council and a city solicitor. Hodgson has acknowledged that former state Sen. William Q. “Biff” MacLean Jr., New Bedford City Councilor John T. Saunders and former mayor Judge John Markey approached him seeking a job for Livingstone.”

In 2011 Livingstone, who had stopped coming to work, resigned amid accusations that his job had been nothing more than a scheme permitting him to extend his state pension benefits. When asked about the scheme on October 6, 2011, Hodgson claimed to have “no idea.” Of course he didn’t. On that particular day the sheriff was more focused on slamming Gov. Deval Patrick’s immigration policies on Lou Dobbs’ FOX News show.

Several of Hodgson’s lawyers are donors. $1.3 million of state money went to donor lawyer and “Special Deputy” Bruce Assad, who is now “Special Sheriff” Bruce Assad. According to Comptroller records, Craig Assad is Hodgson’s Assistant Supervisor of Training, and Steven Assad is a corrections officer. Another million dollars in legal fees went to attorney Ronald Lowenstein, whose family’s contributions in 2004 violated state campaign finance laws. Lowenstein’s former partner, Robert Novack — also a donor — was made a $70K a year part-time employee, qualifying him for a state pension and health benefits, and he now serves as one of Hodgson’s lawyers.

In 2013 Boston Globe reporters Peter Schworm and Matt Carroll looked at patronage among county sheriffs and District Attorneys. Offender #2 was Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph McDonald: “Over the past five years, McDonald has raised about $123,000 in contributions from his 525 employees, almost $50,000 over the past two years alone. That two-year total ranked as the highest among the state’s sheriffs and district attorneys, a Globe survey of campaign records from 2008 through 2012 found.”

But Tom Hodgson followed on McDonald’s heels in total contributions, with Bristol and Plymouth County District Attorneys right at the top of the pack as well.

Patronage damages morale, inhibits whistleblowing, and creates dysfunction. With the highest prisoner suicide rate in the state, the second-highest recidivism rate, the highest rate of complaints of excessive force, and multiple wrongful death and human rights lawsuits, one could argue that the Bristol County jail is the very definition of dysfunction.

A special commission investigating corruption at the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department in 2002 explains why:

“Further compounding the lack of leadership is patronage. Many of the staff at all levels owe their jobs to well-connected politicians. Because the Sheriff made promotions without clearly-defined criteria (or even an employee evaluation process), many staff members concluded that their own advancement depended on politics, rather than merit. In this environment, staff became cynical of policies introduced by top management without their input. Supervisors, a group of employees critical to the proper functioning of the facilities, abdicated their responsibilities and well-formulated policies were not uniformly or consistently implemented.”

In 2014, Republican candidate Jeff Perry lost his bid for the 10th Congressional District on the Cape. But patronage provided a soft landing. Perry was appointed “Special Sheriff,” a job that pays $100K a year, by political buddy, Barnstable Sheriff Jim Cummings — despite allegations Perry knew about improper strip searches of teenage girls when he was a Wareham police sergeant in the 90’s.

The Ware Inquiry

In 2010 the Boston Globe Spotlight Team investigated Rep. Tom “Tommy” Petrolati and Parole Commissioner John O’Brien. Petrolati apparently leaned on Hampden County Sheriff Michael Ashe to hire some of Petrolati’s friends and associates and, when Ashe balked, Petrolati retaliated. But the sheriff had his own turf to defend. In 2009 Ashe, known for his extravagant community clambakes and whose motto was “strength reinforced with decency; firmness dignified with fairness,” awarded his own brother a consulting contract, making him the highest paid public safety official in Massachusetts.

The Globe’s reporting eventually led to a Supreme Judicial Court inquiry headed up by Special Investigator Paul Ware. In 2010 the Ware Inquiry released its 337 page report, naming state Senators and Representatives, members of the Parole Commission, and county sheriffs’ employees who to this day offer patronage and violate campaign finance laws. When asked about the Parole Department, Governor Deval Patrick described it as an “unaccountable and to some extent rogue agency.” Many of the state’s law enforcement agencies have a culture of corruption, as Troopergate just demonstrated.

Page 197 of the Ware Inquiry identified Senator Mark Montigny as the top practitioner of patronage. Sal DeMasi, who went to jail for other types of corruption, appears third on Ware’s list. Montigny, in fact, accounted for 54 out of all 319 “sponsorships” investigated, one of which was a girlfriend poorly ranked by the hiring panel because of her lack of experience. Other than the girlfriend, Montigny’s friends had extraordinary success finding jobs. Page 38 of Ware’s report notes: “Of the 54 candidates sponsored by Senator Montigny, for example, at least 23, or 42.6%, were contributors to the Senator. Of the 23 contributors, 11 were successful in being hired or promoted within a year following the sponsorship (47.8%). By contrast, of the 31 non-contributors, only 1 (3%) was hired or promoted.”

In 2014 the Standard Times’ Jack Spillane asked, “… what are we to make of the fact federal prosecutors have painted a portrait of Montigny, now 21 years in office, as exactly like the man who is his unwanted political godfather?”

Spillane was referring to Montigny’s mentor, former state Senator William Q. “Biff” MacLean. The same MacLean who in 1993 pleaded guilty to conflict of interest violations involving state contracts, paid a half-million dollar fine and who ironically served a year of probation and was stripped of his pension. The same MacLean whose son Douglas was hired in 1999 by Bristol County District Attorney Paul Wash despite a history of heroin and cocaine abuse, and multiple criminal convictions. The same MacLean whose son again In 2004 — with help from Mark Montigny — was given a job in the probation system, which he lost five years later after being arrested for possession of crack cocaine.

The same “Biff” MacLean who leaned on Hodgson to hire disgraced judge Livingstone.

What can be done?

Tom Hodgson is one of the worst and doesn’t deserve a break. But neither do all the other state ethics violators out there. Hodgson’s corruption is part of a culture that spans political parties. His abuses persist because neither party has the political will to end patronage. Instead, each year criminal reforms include studies, oversight groups, and tweaks to Department of Corrections rules that shut out the public and make offending agencies accountable only to themselves.

Here are some other approaches we might try:

  • Ban employee political contributions. Worcester County Sheriff Lewis Evangelidis promised during his 2010 campaign to not accept campaign donations from employees. “The perception has been that this place was extremely political, and it seemed the morale of employees was low because of the perceived or real sense of politics being a part of the hiring process,” he said shortly after his campaign ended. Half the state’s sheriffs follow this example and do not accept contributions from their employees.

  • Professionalize corrections staff. Sheriff Evangelidis raised the bar to require correctional officers to hold either an Associate Degree or have military service. This was a start, but insufficient. Corrections officers should all have completed coursework in psychology and the social sciences supervisors should have master’s degrees in these areas.

  • Abolish make-work jobs. Remember Jeff Perry — the “Special Sheriff” hired by Barnstable County Sheriff Jim Cummings? This position had been vacant and was dusted-off just for him. Perry himself signalled that he would just be warming the seat until another political opportunity presented itself. Jails should not be a jobs program for politicians between gigs.

  • Professionalize the hiring. Perry’s hiring — his department under a cloud of sexual abuse — would not have been possible if an independent civil service were responsible for hiring.

  • Limit command structure. As the PCG study shows, left to their own devices sheriffs pad supervisory ranks. Supervisory jobs must be justified and reviewed by a public (non-DOC) oversight group and should never be directly filled by a sheriff.

  • Pay for treatment not jails. Treatment for substance abuse and psychological problems — the majority of people in county jail — should be delivered in a clinical setting by healthcare and treatment professionals. We must not spend a penny more for jails. Spend it on treatment; otherwise, it’s wasted tax money.

  • Abolish the position of sheriff. This is one way to deal with patronage havens. All county jails have been owned by the state since 2010. Bristol County has only an agricultural vocational high school and a county print shop. Place all jails under the Department of Corrections and have the state police handle process serving. Connecticut and Rhode Island do this already.

  • Prosecute. Corruption breeds impunity. As chief law-enforcer, the Attorney General is in the unenviable position of having to defend sheriffs. But who defends citizens’ interests? Change laws or set up a new non-partisan prosecutorial agency to deal with state corruption.

  • Vote wisely. Sheriffs are constrained by the Department of Corrections (DOC), the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS), and the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (EOAF). All are appointed by the [present] Republican governor. The current Democratic state auditor conducted only a cursory “performance” audit which only makes friendly recommendations to a sheriff, not holds him accountable. As Tom Hodgson repeatedly tells voters: if you don’t like him, vote him out.

Tom Hodgson and his End Times buddy

Posted by on 2019-04-22 No comments

Tom Hodgson is in bed with the extreme Right. There’s his seat on the National Board of Advisors of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group founded by white supremacist John Tanton. Then there’s his membership in the Constitutional Sheriff’s and Police Officer’s Association, an extremist group of lawmen who claim to know the proper interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Then there are Hodgson’s flirtations with Muslim-bashers, gay-bashers, birthers, and all manner of conspiracy nuts — many of them members of FAIR.

And then, in a category all by himself, there’s Rick Wiles.

In November 2014 Hodgson appeared on TruNews — the “End Times Newscast” with Wiles, who advocates locking up people whose politics he disagrees with — just like Hodgson. The sheriff managed to cram in many of FAIR’s talking points on Wiles’ show, repeating the lie that Mexico pays $300 per child to come into the United States, that 30,000 Americans have been murdered by illegal immigrants since 9/11, and that undocumented immigrants receive better treatment than citizens because — well — that’s just what America-hating Liberal elites want.

Wiles then turned his questions to the “historical role of the Constitutional sheriff,” giving Hodgson an opportunity to whine about Massachusetts mayors and other officials who support Safe Communities. The show ended with Wiles appealing to his audience to raise funds for local sheriffs to attend a FAIR-sponsored event. Hodgson, who in 2014 was already sticking taxpayers for his FAIR-related travel, never bothered to correct Wiles.

So it didn’t come as a surprise when Hodgson’s old buddy went on the air, warning that any opposition to Donald Trump’s plan to build a border wall would result in the US military rounding up godless subversives and smiting them. Extreme, certainly. But that’s why people like Wiles and Hodgson are called extremists.

“They’d better wise up and stop what they’re doing because they’re pushing the republic to the brink of breaking,” Wiles warned. “They’d better count the cost. What happens if you push the country that far? You snap the bonds that hold this country together [and] you might be shocked at the reaction you get because there is a lot of fury built up inside millions of Americans who are just fed up with what the Left is doing.”

“It’s going to be lights out for the Democrats and the leftists,” Wiles said. “The conservative patriots will slam your slimy butts against the wall that you hate. It’s going to happen. They are not going to tolerate it. The American people want law and order in this country and the Democrats are a party of rebellion, of lawlessness. They better count the cost before they do something crazy because there’s a limit to how much patience the American people are going to show them.”

But speaking of locking people up — locking Tom Hodgson in his office on Faunce Corner Road might not be such a crazy idea.

Then maybe the immigration-obsessed sheriff could finally take care of the many messes he’s created by neglecting his day job — spending all his working hours with proto-fascists like Wiles and his white supremacist handlers at FAIR.

Vindicated!

Posted by on 2019-04-20 No comments

Despite Donald Trump’s initial celebratory Tweets, he has not been vindicated by the Mueller report. If anything, the stench of corruption is now even greater — now that the cover has been taken off the reeking dumpster that is his administration. As CNN pointed out, the “vindication” victory lap didn’t last long before Trump started calling the Mueller Report “total bullshit.”

But there was a vindication to be celebrated. It turns out, the press, doggedly following leads and the dozens of now-felons who once worked for Trump, and despite some notable screw-ups, had been generally pursuing the truth all along. Despite constant whining from the White House that it was all “fake news,” and despite the spin that Trump’s personal lawyer James Barr tried to give it, the press was largely vindicated.

After years of bald-face lies and embarrassingly transparent prevarication, few believe a word that comes out of Kellyanne Conway’s smirking mouth. But it was quite the revelation that spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders — whose religious hypocrisy was on full display — actually lied to the press about James Comey’s firing.

It was disappointing that Robert Mueller’s findings did not establish presidential criminal conduct, but Mueller left plenty of bread crumbs for Congress should it wish to pursue impeachment. Yet even if the House impeaches, the Senate must convict with a supermajority — an almost impossible hurdle to overcome for ridding the nation of a corrupt, mentally unfit, white supremacist president. Equally disappointing, centrist Democrats with short attention spans have apparently lost the nerve to pursue impeachment — time to move on, national healing, campaigns to run, money to raise.

But the House must begin impeachment proceedings. And here’s why.

For one thing, Mueller’s report did not uncover everything that will ever be known about Trump’s corrupt dealings and his obstruction of justice. There are at least a dozen ongoing investigations that will eventually yield more insight into Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice and commit (or have others commit) criminal acts. While Office of Legal Counsel rules gave a sitting president a prosecutorial pass like Jessie Smollett’s, declining to prosecute is not the same thing as finding no wrongdoing.

Second, the greatest casualty of Donald Trump’s administration has been the truth. Impeachment proceedings will make it difficult for Americans with even partially open eyes and ears to maintain that it’s all been “fake news.” Impeachment proceedings will keep the Mueller report from fading from public consciousness and will make it difficult for Trump to ride out his crimes and lies, even with his invention of new national “emergencies.”

Painful and stressful as impeachment proceedings may be, it will do the nation good to dwell in the truth for a year after steeping in Trump’s lies for two.

Too good to be true

Posted by on 2019-04-14 No comments
Too good to be true?
Too good to be true?

When something is too good to be true, it usually isn’t.

During Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson’s 287(g) hearings on April 10, 2019, citizens pushed back at Hodgson’s claims that his 287(g) agreement with ICE is a big money-maker. Hodgson claimed that since 2007 he has “earned” $61 million of ICE reimbursements for the Commonwealth. News sources have been parroting the sheriff’s numbers without really looking at the math.

Some of us, on the other hand, have reason to believe the sheriff is simply subsidizing ICE detentions at a loss to the taxpayer because of his well-known associations with far-right anti-immigrant groups. And recently obtained Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association figures support this suspicion.

The FY2017 Massachusetts Sheriff’ s Association’s “Spending per Inmate Report” for all counties shows that the average cost per prisoner per day in the Commonwealth’s 13 county jails is roughly $134 — well over the $98 that ICE reimburses Hodgson and the $90-$94 it reimburses other Massachusetts sheriffs. Hodgson’s incredible (as in “not credible”) figures are so low, and so anomalous, that only forensic accounting by a watchdog agency can ascertain if they are truthful.

Right before she was ejected from the hearings for arguing with Hodgson, local activist Marlene Pollock asked the sheriff if his suspicious figures were the result of (1) skimping on food, rehabilitation and medical care of prisoners, (2) if the sheriff was still using the shoddy financial management practices a recent state audit faulted him for; or (3) if Hodgson had found some magic formula no other sheriff could duplicate.

The sheriff chose the last option, calling the state audit a “joke” and trumpeting his SAMS system — a 20 year-old piece of homegrown management software and the data it tracks “right down to the cost of a cup of coffee” — as the key to his too-good-to-believe custody and care costs. When challenged to share his expertise with other sheriffs, Hodgson declined, claiming that House Speaker Robert DeLeo had all the numbers.

And now the public needs to see those numbers.

The Bristol County sheriff may not appreciate the scrutiny, but the Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association report calls into serious question Hodgson’s fabulous (as in “out of a fable”) per-diem rate. Only a complete and detailed accounting of Bristol County Sheriff’s Office income and expenses — right down to the cost of that cup of coffee — will prove whether the sheriff and his numbers can truly be trusted. Equally important, the question of whether the state’s ICE agreements are losing money can finally be answered.

Though short of a full accounting, Amendment 1250 to the FY2020 budget requires sheriffs participating in 287(g) agreements to document the real costs of caring for, and the proper reimbursement of, ICE detainees. This amendment was sponsored by representatives Cabral of New Bedford, Robinson of Framingham, Balser of Newton, Domb of Amherst, Hecht of Watertown, Vega of Holyoke, Provost of Somerville, Peake of Provincetown, Lewis of Framingham, Garballey of Arlington, Decker of Cambridge, Farley-Bouvier of Pittsfield and DuBois of Brockton.

Bristol County for Correctional Justice recently testified before the Ways and Means Committee in favor of the amendment, and we urge state representatives concerned with the abuse of taxpayer money to support its provisions.

When something is too good to be true, it usually isn’t.

Neither public, nor a hearing

Posted by on 2019-04-11 No comments

Citizens of Bristol County have known for years that sheriff Tom Hodgson peddles fiction while demonizing brown people, that he relies on sham awards and sham accreditations to spray away the stink of the human rights abuses, prisoner mistreatment and deaths at his facilities, and he is not averse to using excessive force on prisoners.

But last night Bristol County residents got a little taste of it themselves at an ostensibly “public hearing” the sheriff is required to hold once a year as part of his 287(g) agreement with ICE.

In contrast to recent 287(g) hearings in Barnstable and Plymouth counties, Hodgson’s show was not a public event. And, unlike his award ceremonies which are often held at schools to maximize the number of community visitors, this one was designed to keep the public away from people asking tough questions.

In line with the xenophobe who relentlessly shills for “Fortress America,” getting into Hodgson’s hearings was almost as bad as going through airport security. Anyone who wanted to attend first had to RSVP by email, then get by the jail’s guard house, where “Special Sheriff” Bruce Assad checked their ID, permitting only those on the “list” to enter the jail complex. Visitors were then directed to a parking lot from which they had to walk about a thousand feet, past a phalanx of armed deputies, to the jail’s auditorium, where once again they had to show ID.

Nor could the spectacle really be called a hearing. Though the ICE panel included Sheriff’s Office Legal Counsel Robert Novack, “Special Sheriff” Bruce Assad, Superintendent of Security Steven Souza, ICE Boston Deputy Field Office Director Marcos Charles, ICE Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer Claudia English, Sheriff’s Director of Immigration Services Liunetty Couto, and Sheriff’s spokesman Jon Darling, Hodgson did all the talking. This was his show.

During the “hearings” the tone-deaf sheriff refused to truly listen to the roughly 50 attendees, most of whom disapprove of Hodgson’s abuses of prisoners and his unilateral decision to sign the 287(g) agreement. The sheriff treated his guest with contempt, evading questions, peddling falsehoods, frequently changed the subject, lashing out at his enemies, and it was clear the purpose was mainly to demonstrate that he was in control of the show.

At the beginning of the proceedings, two members of the FANG Collective, Arely Diaz and Max Grear, unfurled a banner and began to make a statement. They were immediately assaulted by a number of Bristol County deputies, arms twisted into submission, and were shoved out the door. They did not resist, nor did they refuse to leave. The two had RSVP’d and were on the sheriff’s “list.” Nevertheless, the two face multiple charges, including trespassing, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. FANG may have momentarily interrupted the sheriff’s staged event, but the disorderly conduct was entirely the sheriff’s by responding with violence to people who had irritated him by protesting in front of his house last winter.

The thin-skinned sheriff also ejected New Bedford activist Marlene Pollock, who had the temerity to challenge him during one exchange on former inmate claims of brutality and neglect. Hodgson delivered personal insults to Pollock and referred to her long history of opposing him before ejecting her as well from “his” hearings. Through both these authoritarian acts of force Hodgson made it clear he was delivering personal payback to his political enemies.

There was a contingent of deputies inside and out who managed to create an intimidating environment for attendees. A conspicuous display of weapons was a new touch this year, and it seemed hardly coincidental. Everyone was packing a sidearm, including the sheriff, and ICE Boston Deputy Field Office Director Marcos Charles was wearing an ankle holster.

The arrests and ejection of the sheriff’s enemies were the only aspect of the hearings that the press generally thought to cover. Among issues of substance raised by Bristol County voters last night were Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association’s figures showing that ICE agreements are actually costing the state millions — not raking in the profits that Hodgson claims and the press parrots. Citizen questions also revealed that the number of deputized ICE agents at the jail has not increased and that in the last year only 18 Bristol County ICE detainees were arrested on criminal charges. Bristol County Jail and ICE statistics both refute the sheriff’s claims that “criminal aliens” are overwhelming the Commonwealth.

Community members also questioned whether all the money lost to ICE could not be better spent on medically assisted drug treatment, prisoner rehabilitation and education programs, and better food and health care. But the sheriff retreated to his single preoccupation — immigration — claiming that immigrants account for most of America’s crime, that MS-13 is taking over the state, and that 90% of the opioids in the US are coming across the border. Community pushback on these lies and misinformation accomplished nothing. The sheriff’s heart and mind are black holes admitting no light.

It was a complete waste of time for everyone. But for Hodgson it may have been a great audition for one of those empty Homeland Security jobs now available with the Trump administration.

Patience

Posted by on 2019-04-01 No comments

On March 24th Trump’s Attorney General — and we should take the phrase literally, since William Barr has even less integrity and closer ties to Trump than Jeff Sessions — issued a four-page summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report. In it, Barr quotes Mueller: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Barr also writes: “The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, consired or coordinated with the Russian government [to influence the election].” Trump took a victory lap, claiming “complete and total exoneration.

Did not establish. Did not find. Despite the fact that a large number of close Trump associates — including Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, Richard Pinedo, Roger Stone, and Alex van der Zwaan — were convicted (or in Stone’s case, indicted) for crimes related to collusion with over 30 Russians and 3 corporations that meddled in the 2016 election.

From the kid gloves applied to the president, one must conclude that ours is a broken legal system designed primarily to incarcerate and kill brown people with broken tail lights — but one that provides concierge service to rich white men — to the point that even treason can be overlooked.

I am always a bit suspicious of other people’s summaries, preferring to read an original myself. If you have ever read a Yelp review, you know what I’m talking about. If you have ever read an Amazon review, you recognize a fake when you see one — for example, as this Fakespot analysis of Trump’s “Art of the Deal” shows. Or, if you have actually read American history, you would be surprised to learn that the Cliff Notes version of American slavery says that “slaves sometimes had better physical living conditions than poor whites.” Or you might have seen James Agee’s gushing review of D.W. Griffith’s KKK film “Birth of a Nation.”

And we should be especially suspicious of any summary from an underling of Donald Trump, a pathological liar who will shortly celebrate his 10,000th lie.

But William Barr’s summary also notes that “the Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted collusion.”

In fact, Barr adds: “For each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. the Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'”

For this reason I am patiently waiting for the actual 380-page Mueller report — though I hope it doesn’t look like Michael Flynn’s sentencing document:

In the end, it will be up to the House of Representatives, with its slim centrist Democrat majority, to decide whether to rake the president over well-deserved coals and, if necessary, to compel Robert Mueller to discuss his findings and explain any redactions. I am not hopeful Pelosi will rise to the occasion.

But I will try to be patient.