The thesis strain personification in a credentials of this D.C. story is Barrett Strong’s 1959 hit: “Money (That’s what we want).”
“The best things in life are free,
though we can give them to a birds and a bees,
I need income
that’s what we want.”
Some contend that income is not a many critical thing in a world. Love is. Unfortunately, a D.C. pols adore money. Hence a crime saga.
Solving a nonplus is a shortcoming of U.S. Attorney Ron Machen and his group of partner prosecutors and FBI agents. Machen has supposing petrify justification of wrongdoing. To summation a year’s events so far:
●Kwame Brown’s standing altered abruptly from city authority to law-breaker in Jun after his self-assurance for bank fraud. Sentencing of a former D.C. Council authority is set for September.
●So has Gray’s longtime crony and debate help Jeanne Clarke Harris.
But a poser is distant from over.
As we have written before, interrogation minds wish to know: Who is “Co-conspirator #1”?
This individual, according to Machen and justice documents, schemed with Harris to emanate a $653,000 debate account to elect Gray. Co-conspirator #1 also bankrolled a bootleg operation, Machen said.
Some have speculated that Co-conspirator #1 is D.C. businessman Jeffrey Thompson.
This most is known: Federal agents raided Thompson’s home and offices in Mar and took divided loads of stuff.
Can a confiscated materials mount adult to front-page scrutiny? Do fruits of a raid have a temperament on a “shadow campaign” account or other presumably wrong activities? Co-conspirator #1 knows. So, presumably, do prosecutors.
Which gets us to puzzling “Person A.”
Howard Brooks, who pleaded guilty to fibbing to sovereign agents, has owned adult to giving a border claimant in a 2010 mayoral contest, Sulaimon Brown, income to stay in a competition and continue rising written attacks on then-Mayor Adrian M. Fenty. Brooks was no freelancer; he suggested a feds that he was “instructed” to compensate Brown by “Person A.” Who, urge tell, is that?
Speculation is rampant. Could it be Lorraine Green, also a tighten crony of Gray’s and president of his 2010 debate and transition committees? Brooks was Green’s major in a campaign. Green has denied meaningful about Gray debate supports being given to Brown, and dual tighten friends of hers adamantly confirmed to me that she is not a chairman who “instructed” Brooks to compensate Brown. So, if not Green, afterwards who? Gray denies meaningful about a payments to Brown. Who’s left? What does Machen know? Can he infer it?
Let’s demeanour again during a particular who grown a devise to control a shade debate on Gray’s behalf. Harris conspicuous in justice that while “Co-conspirator #1” supposing a money, a intrigue was dreamed adult by someone else. Who is a schemer? Again, what does Machen know, and what can he do about it?
The lust for ducats gathering Harry Thomas, both Browns and some Gray debate staffers.
That same lust is a pushing force behind all of a wrangling and backdoor maneuvering over a city’s lottery contract, a awarding of that 4 years ago is being investigated by a FBI for possible corruption.
That $228 million agreement had a hustlers salivating. Remember a thesis song: “I need money, that’s what we want.”
Money represented a slip trail to easy street. Why?
The lottery agreement leader was approaching to be a inhabitant or general association since of a compulsory expertise; domestic vigour compulsory a leader to have a internal partner who could pass domestic muster. That means winning clearway from a D.C. Council, that approves all city contracts over $1 million.
With a council’s blessing, a internal partner faced a destiny filled with ka-ching sounds, all for doing zero solely carrying a internal residence and, oh yes, some well-connected non-European faces.
Now that’s value fighting and fibbing for, some thought. So they did.
Can’t wait to strech a finish of this latest, and maybe greatest, section of a crime play . . . when sentencing is conspicuous on all.