David Postman includes a fascinating point in his coverage of the early release of felons now in the news:
State corrections chief Harold Clarke, also at Gregoire's press conference this morning, said the policy has been in place for five years. That predates Gregoire's term as governor, but she was attorney general when the program apparently began.
Postman goes on to note in his post and in the comments that the Governor forcefully denied she was aware of the program either as AG or in her current job. Obviously, if she did know things would get mighty difficult for her in a hurry.
Meanwhile, she faces some real pressure. How many felons walked early in the preceding five years? Who in the Gregoire administration knew about the policy? Why wasn't the Governor aware either now or as AG?
Given her justifiable outrage and swift response, one would assume she's posing these questions behind the scenes, and one would hope holding people accountable with vigor.
From what we've seen thus far it would seem matters can only get worse for Gregoire as information comes out about this story. The only question is exactly how bad it gets.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 06, 2007 07:41 AM | Email ThisI personally think it was on purpose as her royalty deliberately tried to thwart State law regarding water rights. She also moved people working on water rights into other exotic prgrams decrying lack of funding. She used the water right law to attempt to get additional funding (to no effect, BTW).
No one can tell me that as AG you wouldn't know momentous things going on affecting your work. But again, maybe she was busy fighting the tobacco companies and didn't have time for State business.
Posted by: swatter on March 6, 2007 08:33 AM1. The policy to release felons early has been in place for 5 years, predating Christine Gregoire becoming Governor in January 2005.
2. Gregoire was Attorney General from January 1993 to December 2004, so she gets blamed for the policy being in effect while she was Attorney General.
3. If extending the blame on Gregoire is appropriate, shouldn't we place some of the blame on the current Attorney General, Rob McKenna? After all, he has been Attorney General since January 2005 and lots of felons have been released on his watch.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 6, 2007 08:47 AMNow to this business of releasing felons, Gregoire is most definitely trying to cover her ass on this. Who's up for some public record requests to DOC and the Governor's Office, to find out who knew what, and when?
Posted by: Patrick on March 6, 2007 09:01 AMPlus she can barter with the felons to make sure suburban mail votes "fall of the truck".
Posted by: John Bailo on March 6, 2007 09:07 AM2. Usually in schemes, a number of shills are released, but among those released are a couple of prominent or high profile people that they hope to slide through. Was that the case in the individuals released?
3. Were there certain attorneys or law firms that had their clients released more often?
4. Were firms or individual attorneys making campaign contributions more likely to have their clients released.
Is there something more going on here than bad prison managment?
Posted by: WVH on March 6, 2007 09:17 AMwonder if this stuff will be the topic of yet more open govt public disclosure law restrictions now in play.
trouble is, no felon has personally affected HER family while on parole. unlike us commoners and (may they be remembered) some law enforcement people. if felons were released on HER town block, you'd see swift changes and a medeival punishment system history has not recently seen.
the former AG was perhaps too busy doing her job to be doing her job. forest & trees.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 6, 2007 10:12 AMYou made my point. Isn't it supposed to be equal justice under the law? In any event, my questions need to be answered. Is there any hint of pay for play? The Clinton pardons often had a big donation to the library preceeding release.
Posted by: WVH on March 6, 2007 10:14 AM"Eh, uh. Prisons? Why do we have prisons? Everybody is basically good. I don't recall any of this. Where is my limo and doggie?"
"Ms. Gregoire, can you comment on the consistent blatant manipulation of votes in King County?"
"Uh, King wha? I like Burger King! They have that big plastic man. You can have it your way! Hey look, did you drop this pallet of votes by?"
"Ms. Gregoire, do you have any comments regarding your theft of the election for Govenor from the twice elected Dino Rossi?"
"Dino was that doggie on the Flintstones and Rossi is that really, really good wine I get by the gallon. Wanna see a picture of my dog and his State Patrolman, err person? Did you know fishing is fish murder? Let's sing Washington my Home! Cause it is MINE. And watch out for those talk radios!"
Posted by: pbs7mm on March 6, 2007 12:04 PMYour guess is as good as mine. Remember they are the same party pushing for restoring voting rights to felons as soon as they get out of prison. Perhaps the Dem's are trying to pad the vote in 2008.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 6, 2007 12:49 PMFollow the money.
Posted by: WVH on March 6, 2007 01:34 PMYou are never slow, sometimes reticent. Of the sponsors of the bill, who are their contributors?
Are there groups or lobbyists supporting the position that we need to rehabilitate rather than incarcerate? Is this a question of positioning for the next election and is there a supporter bloc that needs to be appeased?
if this policy was in existance 5 years ago, somebody was not paying attention if this indeed even alarmed her.
Posted by: Gus on March 6, 2007 07:02 PMThey. Do. Not.
Never have. Never will.
The AG has no authority over the cabinet agencies within the Executive Branch. The office serves in an advisory role. While it's possible an AAG or team of AAGs assigned to the DOC knew about this, to flat-out state the AG reviews every DOC policy is absurd.
Listen. If Christine the Governor knew about this, that's one thing. If she doesn't take further action on it, that's another. But in our zeal to throw stones at the Queen, some of us are just making things up out of whole cloth. It does not help our cause at all.
The question shouldn't be what Gregoire knew as AG, or what Rob McKenna knows now. Instead somebody should be asking Chase Riveland, his successor and Gary Freakin' Locke how this happened.
Posted by: jimg on March 7, 2007 12:25 AMmust be they did not beleive that particular policy should rise to the level of attention of the then AG. in all fairness, perhaps it was discussed and rejected, due to the AG office's advisory status.
but the AG's office receives every policy and every revision.
thx for the clarification.
Posted by: Gus on March 7, 2007 06:30 AM