Let’s be honest: We all take a certain satisfaction in being able to say, ‘Told you so!’ This is especially true when an unexpected outcome is not only one you have expected but one that conforms to the outlines of some discernible principle. The Flyer was immediately dubious about the Justice Department’s indictment in July 2007 of Joseph Lee and Edmund Ford on bribery and extortion charges and said so editorially in our issue of July 19 last year.
Here is what we said:
A Bridge Too Far
Anybody who expresses skepticism about the prospects of the U.S. Attorney’s
Office, in tandem with the FBI, for closing out a prosecution successfully
should probably submit to the proverbial head examination. After all, in the 11
Tennessee Waltz-related cases tried or otherwise resolved so far, federal
prosecutors and the men and women of the bureau have proved to be literally
invincible — a perfect record.In the last week alone, guilty pleas were wrung from two lions of the state
legislature: former state senator Kathryn Bowers of Memphis, who had resigned
after being indicted, and state senator Ward Crutchfield of Chattanooga, who
still serves. It’s clear though that he, like Bowers, who is due for sentencing
this fall, will be among the missing when the General Assembly reconvenes in
January.But we are reserving judgment about both the validity and the outcome of new
prosecutions announced last week by the two federal offices. These indictments —
of former MLGW head Joseph Lee, city councilman Edmund Ford, and Ford’s landlord
Dennis Churchwell — pose some troubling questions. Not that we countenance the
offenses these three men are accused of — namely, engaging in improper
trade-offs of favors to secure private goals from city government. Basically,
the entire nexus of the case lies in the incontrovertible fact of Ford’s being a
world-class deadbeat in relation to the whopping bills he owed to MLGW in
utility fees and to Churchwell in rent for his funeral home.The government charges that Ford was given a pass by Lee in return for the
councilman’s favorable attitude on matters, some personal and financial, of
importance to the utility president. Churchwell and Ford are accused of a
compact in which the councilman voted Churchwell’s way on zoning issues in which
the latter had a vested interest, in return for inhabiting his professional
quarters rent-free.Sleaz-eee! This is big-time corruption, and it should be punished. We shed no
tears for Lee, who was sacked from his job when these and other matters became
public, nor for Ford, who already carries a bribery indictment and is clearly a
scofflaw of unmatchable arrogance, nor for the self-serving Churchwell, for whom
the word “lout” may well have been invented.The question is: How much of this unsavory one-hand-washes-the-other mess
actually rises to the level of crime? It is not by way of excusing the behavior
to observe that these acts are consistent with and bear the same shape, odor,
and texture of the way politics, government, and private interests have always
interacted. If this case succeeds, are we to call for the prosecution of a
public servant who sponsors or votes for significant legislation on behalf of a
major campaign contributor? Does anybody doubt that causal connections to one
degree or another exist in such instances? And how does one extricate from all
these itemized quid pro quos simple facts of friendship or convenience?The burden of proof is, as always, on the government, but in this case we trust
it can also demonstrate to a jury that it is not expanding its immense power
into areas of conduct that, however questionable, have rarely if ever been
regarded as criminal.
