Hispanic News Requests U.S. Attorney General to Investigate Napolitano Arpaio Quid Pro Quo

PHOENIX (By Jon Garrido, The Jon Garrido Network)  March 9, 2009 — In 1993, President Bill Clinton appointed Janet Napolitano as United States Attorney for the District of Arizona. As U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Napolitano investigated Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Civil Rights abuses and criminal investigation of deaths in the Maricopa County Jail.

On the last day as U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona in 1998, Napolitano held a joint press conference with Joe Arpaio where Napolitano announced she was ending the U.S. Attorney Civil Rights investigation of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Maricopa County Jail deaths. It was classic Napolitano, who has always been more politician than tough-minded public servant.

The question then and to this day is why did Napolitano end the investigation of Joe Arpaio?

The first clue surfaced in the 2002 campaign for Governor of Arizona.

The 2002 Gubernatorial Democratic Primary

In 2002, Janet Napolitano ran in the Democratic primary for governor of Arizona as the former U.S. Attorney for Arizona and Alfredo Gutierrez ran on his laurels as a former president of the Arizona Senate thinking he did not have to campaign to win. It was the dumbest political campaign in recorded history. A squandered golden opportunity to elect an Hispanic governor had there been a Gutierrez political campaign but there was no campaign. A classic text book example on how pride looses an election.

Napolitano overwhelmingly defeated Gutierrez 2.6 to 1.

The Gutierrez non campaign handed the primary election to Napolitano. With a significant win over her Democratic challenger, Napolitano became the Democratic standard bearer but faced a formidable Republican candidate in Matt Salmon. With an overwhelming Republican registration base, Salmon should have easily defeated Napolitano. It was ever scheming Napolitano who reached back and pulled the rabbit out of the hat with the Arpaio endorsement that Napolitano may have obtained in 1998 in her quid pro quo deal with Arpaio in dropping all investigations of Arpaio in her return for Arpaio's endorsement for governor.

The possible scenario

During the 2002 Arizona gubernatorial race, Joe Arpaio was the most powerful Republican in Arizona. With Napolitano in need of minimizing the Republican vote to win the Arizona Governorship, Napolitano prior to her last day as U.S. Attorney for Arizona had probably cut a deal with Joe Apraio obtaining Arpaio's endorsement in 2002 in her planned run for governor in exchange for dropping the Nordberg death investigation.

In 2002, Republican Arpaio appeared in a television ad endorsing Napolitano's 2002 run for governor. Arpaio's intervention was undoubtedly the deciding factor in her election. It was widely seen the Arpaio endorsement was quid pro quo for Napolitano's dropping a criminal investigation of Scott Norberg's death inside Arpaio's jail.

Republican officials say Arpaio made a crucial mistake in endorsing Napolitano when he appeared in the television ad with Democrat Napolitano in the final days of the extremely close gubernatorial campaign.

The last image of the commercial included a statement in bold red lettering quoting Arpaio saying: "Join me in rejecting the attacks against Janet Napolitano."

A former Democrat who switched to the Republican party in 1982, Arpaio has close ties with Napolitano dating back to her days as the U.S. Attorney in the mid-1990s. Arpaio's apparent endorsement of Napolitano late in the gubernatorial race is widely seen as a payback for Napolitano's dropping a criminal investigation of Scott Norberg's death inside his jail.

In October 1997, then U.S. Attorney Napolitano settled the federal probe into Arpaio's jail operations triggered by the Scott Norberg case without bringing criminal charges against the detention officers and others involved in the June 1, 1996 incident.

On June 1, 1996, Scott Norberg's death in a restraint chair inside Maricopa County's Madison Street Jail remains the watershed event of Arpaio's tenure as sheriff.

One of Arpaio's top aides says not only did detention officers handle Norberg properly, but the calamitous events of that day actually set a standard for how sheriff's detention officers should perform their duties in the future.

"I think the tone was set under Norberg," comments Larry Black, one of Arpaio's chief deputies.

Norberg died of asphyxia after he was tackled by 14 detention officers and strapped into the restraint chair. His head was then pressed forward against his chest and a towel was placed over his face. An autopsy report showed he sustained numerous contusions and lacerations to his head, face, neck and limbs. He had been stun-gunned more than 20 times. There were burn marks up and down his body.

Norberg's death triggered worldwide criticism of the sheriff's office.

The London-based human rights group Amnesty International conducted a review of the incident and issued a 1997 report stating: "Although Norberg was reportedly uncooperative and engaged in bizarre behavior, his behavior and initial 'passive resistance' does not appear to have warranted the extreme degree of force used, especially as he already had his hands handcuffed behind his back and was lying on his stomach on the ground when dragged by officers from his cell."

To this day, Arpaio denies any wrongdoing by his jailers in Norberg's death. In fact, the sheriff is proud of how the matter was handled — even though the county agreed to pay $8.25 million to settle the wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Norberg's family.

The Napolitano decision to drop the investigation of Scott Norberg's death stunned the County Attorney's Office which earlier had begun its own criminal investigation into Scott Norberg's death.

That inquiry was derailed by the actions of former deputy county attorney Jack MacIntyre, the County Attorney's Office says.

MacIntyre ignored Maricopa County Attorney Romley's orders and provided legal advice to sheriff's employees who were named in the Scott Norberg family's wrongful-death suit.

MacIntyre disputes this account, claiming he had Romley's permission to provide the legal advice to the sheriff's employees.

In either case, MacIntyre's advice in the civil suit created a conflict of interest that made it impossible for the county attorney to pursue criminal charges against Arpaio's officers.

Soon after Romley's criminal probe was thwarted, Arpaio rewarded MacIntyre as his director of intergovernmental relations for the sheriff's office.

Then, Napolitano, in a joint press conference with Arpaio on her last day in office as U.S. Attorney, slammed the door on any possibility of charges against jailers involved in Scott Norberg's killing.

With the Scott Norberg criminal probe shelved, Arpaio and Napolitano enjoyed cordial relations after Napolitano was elected state attorney general in 1998 and through her 2002 campaign for governor. Her narrow victory over Salmon left a bitter taste in the mouths of many members of the GOP.

"Republicans feel we would not have Governor Napolitano had it not been for Sheriff Arpaio," says political leader McGrath.

When Arpaio was asked why he appeared in the television advertisement supporting Napolitano just weeks before the election, Arpaio became noticeably agitated.

Arpaio claims he did it to "defend a lady" who had been unfairly attacked by then-Independent gubernatorial candidate Richard Mahoney.

"I did not endorse Janet Napolitano," he insists. "When I endorse somebody, I put my arms around them in public so everybody can see I'm endorsing this person!"

Despite the uproar, Arpaio says he has no regrets about doing the ad: "I'm proud of it. I did it. And that's the way it goes."

Arpaio's claim he did not endorse Napolitano is dismissed as ridiculous by Republican leaders.

Immediately after the Napolitano ad appeared, Matt Salmon called Arpaio and asked Arpaio to publicly endorse him. Arpaio refused, leaving Republicans to draw the only logical conclusion ― fellow party member Joe Arpaio, then the most popular politician in the state, was supporting the Democratic standard-bearer for governor.

"It's quite evident Arpaio chose sides," says Larry Pickard, the Glendale justice candidate who was a former GOP district chairman.

Napolitano with Arpaio's endorsement went on to barely defeat Republican Matt Salmon in a close 46.19% - 45.22% Arizona vote.

It is rumored there was a quid pro quo between Arpaio with Napolitano putting her ambition ahead of justice. If true, this is manipulation, bribery and conspiracy of an election and it worked for Democrat Napolitano defeated Republican Matt Salmon by a slim margin of fewer than 11,820 votes (less than 1%). Without the Arpaio endorsement, Matt Salmon would have won the 2002 Arizona Governors' race and become Governor of Arizona.

There is no criminal evidence or even circumstantial evidence for any of the above but there is a strong appearance of criminal wrongdoing. The definition of the legal statute of Bribery is to obtain a benefit in exchange for giving a benefit. There appears there was an direct benefit to Napolitano dropping the criminal investigation of Scott Norberg's death in exchange for obtaining Arpaio's endorsement for Governor in 2002.

Napolitano's interaction with Arpaio influenced the outcome of the election.  Arpaio provided the benefit of his Republican votes to move Napolitano to become front runner of the Democrats. This had the appearance of a conflict of interest. Why would a Republican promote a Democrat except to influence the outcome of an election? This tampering of the voting box gave the appearance of wrong doing.  

Bribery

Non-statutory sanctions. Bribery, along with treason, is one of two crimes for which the United States Constitution (art. ii, sec. 4) specifically prescribes impeachment for the President, Vice-President, and "all civil officers of the United States."

A more common sanction has been electoral, although belief a candidate is a bribe-taker is more apt to act as a comparative disadvantage than an absolute disqualification. Lawyers convicted of bribery are subject to disbarment. In descending order of frequency, electoral disadvantage, forced or prudential resignation, disbarment, censure, impeachment, and expulsion have been sanctions for bribery in high American office. In enforcing them, the role of the press has been crucial.

Statutes. Modern statutes, state and federal, have four common characteristics. (1) They apply equally to receivers and givers. (2) They are comprehensive, including as officials all employees of government and those acting in a government capacity, such as jurors and legislators. More recent statutes include party officials and even party employees. (3) They treat bribery as a crime that can be committed by the briber even though the bribee is not influenced. (4) They treat bribery as a felony.

American statutes differ in some treat a bribe as any "benefit," thereby including non-pecuniary favors, whereas others restrict the term to pecuniary benefits. Some, such as the New York Penal Code, permit extortion to be a defense for the bribe-giver (N.Y. Penal Law (McKinney) § 200.05 (1999)), but this defense is disapproved by the Model Penal Code (§ 240.1). Older statutes use corruptly to qualify the condemned giving and receiving, whereas more recent ones eliminate corruptly and speak more specifically. An essential component of modem statutes is an anti-gratuity provision making it criminal to confer any benefit on an official "for or because of any official act" (18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A)(1994)). Excepted, of course, are benefits provided by law. The provision eliminates a need to show the benefit was "to influence" performance. The giver is guilty if he gave for the act; the recipient is guilty if he took on account of the act. Some statutes also criminalize compensation for a past official act, obviating difficulty in proving bribery (Model Penal Code § 240.3). Some statutes also criminally forbid private employment in a matter on which, as an official, one had acted, assimilating such conflicting interest to a bribe. An example of such a statute is the Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of Interest Act of 1962, as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§ 201–208 (1999)).

 

Napolitano and Arpaio are not friends of the Phoenix Hispanic community and neither are any of the persons who endorse or work for them.

 

Hispanic News is of the opinion there was a quid pro quo between Arpaio with Napolitano putting her ambition ahead of justice. If true, this is manipulation, bribery and conspiracy of an election and it enabled Democrat Napolitano to defeat Republican Matt Salmon by a slim margin of fewer than 11,820 votes (less than 1%).

 

Hispanic News now asks the U.S. Attorney General to investigate Janet Napolitano and Joe Arpaio on allegations the 2002 campaign for Governor of Arizona was flagrant manipulation, bribery and conspiracy of an election similar to Alberto Gonzales former U.S. Attorney General and Former Sen. Domenici firing U.S. Attorneys to manipulate the outcome of the 2006 congressional elections.

 

Lastly, If President Obama turns a deaf ear to the Arpaio/Napolitano alleged manipulation, bribery and conspiracy of an election, then our votes for Barack Obama were meaningless. This is the message Hispanic News will take to Hispanic America so the message resonates prior to the 2010 and 2012 elections.

 

The next step is this article will be the basis for a letter to the U.S. Attorney General requesting an investigation of alleged Napolitano/Arpaio quid pro quo.

— Jon Garrido, Owner and CEO

The Jon Garrido Network