Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News
It’s the most memorable line from Troopergate, and on its first anniversary, it bears repeating. Darren Dopp, under oath, described how his boss, then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer, authorized him to release police documents to smear Republican leader Joe Bruno.
“F— him, he’s a piece of s—, shove it up his a– with a red hot poker,” is Dopp’s recollection of Spitzer giving the order that launched the scandal.
That outburst, contained in a prosecutor’s report and cleansed for this newspaper, took place in June 2007. But there’ll be no celebration, for this is not a happy subject in Albany. Much of the scandal remains a secret and most of the people charged with finding the facts still seem more interested in hiding them.
Spitzer is long gone, but no thanks to the army of probers who saw no evil in his Nixonian plot to use the state police for political purposes. To this day, Spitzer has never been forced to testify under oath. Next to Albany gumshoes, the Keystone Kops were ace detectives.
Had Spitzer not been caught with his pants down, literally, his abuse of power would have gone unpunished. He lied to and improperly pressured those who were supposed to enforce the law, and they rolled over for him. Many still have their jobs, meaning a broken system has not been fixed.
There are signs of life. Documents I requested will soon be released. And the investigations commission, which said two months ago it was “investigating the investigations,” is interviewing officials who failed their duty, including Albany District Attorney David Soares. He met with investigators, but he is not alone among those deserving scrutiny.
Consider that the so-called Public Integrity Commission has not issued any findings, with a spokesman saying yesterday “it’s an ongoing investigation.” The next Ice Age will be here before the agency, dominated by Spitzer appointees, utters a peep.
One of its handmaidens, state Inspector General Kristine Hamann, was booted by new governor David Paterson, in a purge of Spitzer flunkies involved in the case. And Paterson makes no secret of his disdain for Soares, whose bumbling invites scorn and suspicion. His first report was a whitewash of Spitzer’s role, while a second one suggested Spitzer orchestrated everything.
The biggest difference between the reports is timing. Spitzer was riding high as governor when the first one came out, but had resigned over his hooker habit before the second report was released.
The timing was convenient for Soares, given that Spitzer was his political patron, but time is now his enemy.
Under threat of a lawsuit from the Daily News, Soares, running for reelection, has agreed to release documents from his probe. Although he initially denied a request I made under the Freedom of Information Law, Soares promises to comply with two separate opinions that said he cannot withhold the documents.
If he does comply, we may finally learn what he knew of Spitzer’s role, when he knew it and whether others also lied to him, a reflection of Soares’ failure to put anyone under oath for the first report. We may learn more about the contacts Soares had with Spitzer’s office. In an April interview, Soares conceded to me that one Spitzer aide repeatedly asked for updates while another pushed for a speedy finish.
Yet none of those contacts appears in either report.Read the full column
