Friday, February 22, 2013

Jim Graham responds on the ethics charges

2012 05 30 - 4727 - DC - CM Jim Graham

After my blog post about the ethics charges against Jim Graham, I received an email response from the councilman:
Your recent blog post about me stated that the situation was complex. You are right, it is a bit difficult to understand. But there are three things that r crystal clear: 
There is no allegation of any crime. 
There is no allegation of any illegal financial interest. 
There is no allegation of any law being broken. 
It’s only fair to get this right. Bests Jim
He's right on those as far as I can tell, though I responded that my post didn't make any of those claims, and that I made sure to say that such-and-such newspaper or person "claimed" or "alleged" things.

In any case, the plot thickens: yesterday Graham's attorneys filed an injunction and a restraining order against the ethics board, arguing they didn't follow the proper procedure that was in place, and that he'd be in favor of a special investigation of the issue. Council Chair Phil Mendelson also said he's introducing two resolutions that, in a way, rebuke Graham. One is a reprimand of Graham, while a second one shifts oversight of the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration from a committee that Graham chairs to another committee. Kind of a weird, bureaucratic way to punish Graham, especially since none of this involved ABRA, as far as I can tell.

Council candidate David Grosso has jumped on the "reprimand Graham" bandwagon too, along with Patrick Mara, who I mentioned previously.

Photo by thisisbossi


  1. The Board ruled that CM Graham behaved unethically in just this narrow manner. CM disagrees, but basically agrees that this is his normal political approach. Therefore it is OK steer contracts outside of the process to political allies, as long as he does not get nor is proved that he got paid off directly.

    His denials are designed to split hairs. This is not a criminal matter yet, an ethical one. One in which he came up short.

    Sure there was a financial interest. He just happened to fail in steering in this case. Ask Donatelli, he's usually successful.

    These are more then charges, they were ruled on. He got off on a technicality.

    I'm not surprised just sad that you all are Amening his slick talk.


  2. William, you are driving me crazy. I can only report the facts that are reported elsewhere. I'm not saying Graham is right or wrong, I'm saying here's what the Post and the Council says, here's what Graham says. People can make up their own mind who they believe.

    I think if you read this response and the other post I wrote it's a pretty fair portrait all around.

    You'll notice that you're saying I was too soft of him, and Graham is basically saying I'm too hard on him.

    You have your own scandals you mention here all the time, but until there's some actual corroboration, I can't write them up aside from "blog commenter William Jordan said all this stuff," and that's not fair.

  3. If your response to accusations of ethical violations is to split hairs, you were probably guilty of ethical violations. As a politician, he's held to a high ethical standard (not that you'd know it based on his peers). He's lost my trust and my vote.

  4. Andrew did you read the WMATA report and the Ethics Board Report? Both did an investigation and found CM Graham violated ethical standards. Both basically said he violated the public trust and abused the power of his office, but we can't punish him. "He's to slick". There is no doubt here accept from his lawyers and spin doctors. These aren't "charges" anymore. It's the wait of the evidence.

    Did you read his Nixon like depositions. "I don't recall and don't understand the question"

    Believe me, I understand why folk fear CM Graham and his pay-to-play machine.


  5. i am just filled with joy that a CM being paid well over 6 figures responds to your blog post using "r" instead of "are".

    that proves he is a total professional and everyone should just lay off.


Please don't advertise in the comments, and please enter some kind of name when you comment instead of being anonymous.

If the post is more than 28 days old, your comment must be approved first.