The attorney general's office has been run by handpicked McGreevey men, who have conducted themselves more like Mafia consigliere than the leaders of state law enforcement. McGreevey's first AG, David Samson, literally walked away from corruption charges that the State Police's background investigation of McGreevey nominee for State Police superintendent, Joseph Santiago, turned up. Rather than aggressively investigate the charges, S
amson's number two man and successor, Peter Harvey, covered them up. Harvey has also refused to investigate serious charges against other McGreevey appointees, is suspected of having sandbagged federal corruption investigations, has trampled on the state constitution, and though he has been surrounded by corruption, to my knowledge has never cracked a single corruption case. Such aggressive dereliction of duty may or may not be indictable as obstruction of justice -- that's for the feds to determine -- but it's still corruption. Harvey's deputy, Vaughn McKoy, has come up with his own creative ruses to avoid doing his job.
Peter Harvey
According to the
Gannett newspaper chain's Trenton Bureau chief, Bob Ingle, AG
Peter Harvey "couldn't find political corruption with a detailed road map." Ingle's March 15 column was entitled,
"McGreevey administration heading for scandal record." And that was several indictments and resignations ago. Ingle wrote, "As our Sandy McClure first reported, the feds said some state officials did not cooperate with requests for information when subpoenas were served. ‘Some people have not been willing to speak to authorities based on advice of counsel,' a source told McClure. It was not clear who the counsel was.
Federal authorities indicated they would not be amused if it were Attorney General Peter ‘See No Evil' Harvey or an aide. Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest if the state's attorney general, who is entrusted with upholding the law, put the McGreevey administration's interest above his sworn obligation? Could that be impeachment territory for Harvey?"
And as
Robert Schwaneberg wrote in Capital Report, that back in March, 2003, when state Sen. Robert Martin (R-Morris) cast the lone vote against Harvey's nomination on the state judiciary committee,
Harvey retaliated by having Martin subpoenaed. "…Harvey sent investigators to Martin's home with a subpoena. They demanded to know his sources for questioning Harvey's ability to investigate claims that the Governor's Office was interfering in parole decisions. Lawmakers have a constitutional privilege against such interrogation."
