Like many of our readers, this means of communication was totally dissatisfied with the result of the ProbeGate public corruption investigation in South Carolina. While it is true that this multi-year investigation has successfully eradicated several elected officials who abused their public trust positions in the SC State House, it has not gone far enough.
And while also overthrowing the political empire of South Carolina’s master strategist Richard Quinn (at least we think so), failed to expose the status quo interests that led Quinn and his allies to illegally promote their interests.
The real responsibility for the offenses of corrupt elected officials was lacking … and there was absolutely not responsibility when it came to puppet masters pulling their threads.
In fact, the influential corporate entities that benefited from this corruption paid to gamble have escaped unpunished …
ProbeGate “left a lot of flesh on the bone, as far as we are concerned – particularly with regard to corporate customers involved in this pay-to-play scandal,” we noted in December 2018.
Meanwhile, none of the corrupt politicians ensnared by this investigation served more than a single day behind bars. In fact, the only ProbeGate defendant to receive a prison sentence obtained an appeal bail shortly after his conviction. In the future, we have little hope that any of the cases still pending – or currently on appeal – will end differently from those that were concluded previously.
“Nobody dares to call it betrayal”, right?
Once again, however, the lasting injustice associated with this ongoing investigation has less to do with unfortunate politicians who escaped the hook and more to do with corporate defendants who were basically allowed to buy their way out of trouble.
“Corporate entities hired Richard Quinn to gain access and influence over public officials and, by failing to report on Quinn’s services, influenced the outcome of legislative issues without accountability or disclosure to the public,” the grand jurors who investigated Quinn and his colleagues comparsas wrote in a report released in October 2018.
That is the definition of criminal activity, people.
However, although the grand jury determined the existence of a probable cause to accuse these corporate defendants, they were able to avoid the process thanks to several “corporate integrity agreements” negotiated with the SC First Circuit attorney’s office David Pascoe, which conducted the ProbeGate investigation.
These agreements consisted of more than $ 350,000 in monetary fines paid by corporate defendants … directly to Pascoe’s office.
(Click to view)
(Via: FITSNews)
For years, this medium of communication has strongly supported Pascoe’s investigation. But these so-called “integrity” agreements have never pleased us. Allowing corporate entities to basically buy their way out of facing criminal charges is not “integrity”. In fact, some would argue that it is no better than the type of behavior that Pascoe was pursuing in the first place.
Furthermore, the fact that these payments were made directly to Pascoe’s office struck us as highly irregular – and suspect.
At the time, Pascoe praised the agreements as having “substantial terms, resulting in mandatory compliance procedures and fines far greater than the penalties imposed by (state ethics law).”
His view was generally accepted as well … until recently.
On March 12, 2020 – just before the coronavirus pandemic effectively closed the South Carolina judicial branch – all five members of the Supreme Court of SC signed an order in an appeal case over Rick Quinn, Jr., son of Richard Quinn and one of five elected officials who resigned in connection with the scandal.
The youngest Quinn was sentenced to parole by the SC circuit court judge Carmen Mullen – a dubious decision that Pascoe contested on appeal.
This case is now before the highest court in the state … but before its judges address it, there are some outstanding issues that they want to be answered regarding the conduct of Pascoe’s investigation.
In their order, ministers raised three specific issues regarding the corporate integrity agreements negotiated by Pascoe. First, they asked about the “nature” of these agreements. Second, they asked Pascoe to cite the specific authority he invoked to enter into agreements “in exchange for a promise not to prosecute and demand or accept payment of funds from a corporate or governmental entity or from an individual during the course of a criminal investigation?” Finally, the judges asked Pascoe to cite his authority to deposit the proceeds of these deals in the coffers of his own cabinet, as opposed to the general state fund.
Take a look …
Exit Request
(Via: Supreme Court of SC)
To say that these interrogations are shots in the bow of the veteran prosecutor is to be moderate.
The court is putting Pascoe directly in check – raising serious and substantive questions about the conduct of his investigation. And based on the tone of the judges’ questions, it seems clear that they already have specific answers in mind when it comes to the questions they are asking.
In addition, judges are raising these issues in the context of a sentence appeal – a scenario in which we would argue that there is little relevance to the issue at hand.
This is even worse for Pascoe. Essentially, the court is looking for an excuse to raise these issues.
Pascoe’s answer?
“Just as prosecutors across the state typically enter into immunity agreements, offer non-prosecutor agreements and deals in exchange for some concession or assistance for a criminal target, attorney Pascoe used his prosecutor’s authority to enter into contractual agreements with implicated corporate targets investigated by the state grand jury), ”noted a memo submitted to the court by the circuit attorney’s first office.
The Pascoe memo (.pdf) further stated that each agreement with the corporate defendants “includes (d) the payment of funds as reimbursement of the costs of the investigation, with the balance to be transmitted to the South Carolina State Ethics Commission”.
Again, though, where is your authority at any point?
(Click to view)
(Via: FITSNews)
In issuing its order, the supreme court invited the SC attorney general’s office Alan Wilson opine on your legal issues – invitation accepted by Wilson’s office.
In a detailed file written by the attorney general Bob Cook, each of the questions raised by the judges was addressed point by point. According to the Attorney General’s filing (.pdf), Pascoe’s agreements with corporate defendants ProbeGate were “unprecedented and unparalleled in South Carolina”, allowing him to exercise authority “far beyond” what the court granted to him in 2016, when he stated his status as chief prosecutor in the case.
Worse yet, the controversial and conflicting nature of the deals has put a “cloud” over the investigation, according to the attorney general’s office.
“Whether intentional or not, (the agreements) give the appearance that the special prosecutor has a financial stake and a conflict of interest in the prosecutor’s decisions made in these cases,” noted Cook’s motion. “It doesn’t matter if these funds are donated to the promoter’s budget or end up in his pocket. A conflict is a conflict in the same way. “
Later in the process, Cook concluded that the deals actually go so far as to give the appearance of a prosecutor “by not suing a prosecutor for money”.
As for Pascoe’s authority to enter into such agreements – regardless of his motivation – the attorney general concluded that he had none.
“As far as we know, no statute or court order authorizes a non-proceeding agreement, particularly the type of ‘corporate integrity agreements’ that attorney Pascoe has executed here, in which funds are donated to the prosecutor’s office in exchange for non- process, ”wrote Cook.
What about Pascoe’s decision to appropriate the funds from these agreements to his own office?
“Executive directors, like attorney Pascoe, do not have the authority to appropriate funds,” noted the document. “Such authority rests exclusively with the General Assembly, which determined that all these funds be deposited in the general state fund; neither attorney Pascoe nor the presiding judge of the state jury can determine otherwise. “
Any provision to the contrary “infringes (over) the legislative prerogative” and violates the state’s separation of powers doctrine.
The court’s decision to fit into this aspect of the case is clearly quite significant – threatening to reverse the script of the entire ProbeGate narrative. Up to this point, Pascoe has been portrayed as a prosecutor seeking to wipe the State House out of corruption.
Now he is on the defensive against similar claims …
“ProbeGate has become PascoeGate,” a source close to the investigation told us, referring to the court’s challenge at the prosecutor’s discretion.
Our opinion on all this?
Obviously, there is a very to unzip here … and our guess is that this will not be the last time that we will address this last chapter of the ProbeGate saga (which started in the fall of 2014, when our news media revealed exclusively the existence of anti-corruption investigation).
For now, let’s just reiterate our previously stated views on corporate integrity agreements – which is that they left a bad taste in our mouths and seemed to us to be ineffective (at best) in the quest for justice.
Consequently, we support the court in its efforts to get to the bottom of these agreements, even if that line of investigation is unlikely to have any influence on the charges brought in connection with the investigation.
-FITSNews
*****
WANT TO TURN OFF THE SOUND?
Is there anything you would like to say in response to one of our stories? We have an open mic policy! Send your own letter to the editor (or guest column) by email HERE. Do you have a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Have a technical question or failure to report? CLICK HERE. Do you want to help support what we are doing? SUBSCRIBE HERE.
Flag: Getty