Why is Chuck Turner in Handcuffs?
The Boston media used a snippet of videotape released by the FBI to conclude that Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner is guilty of bribery. But the accompanying FBI affidavit, when shorn of speculation and irrelevancies, is a decidedly unconvincing document. Could it be that Chuck Turner is being set up?
Introduction
Boston talk show host Emily Rooney introduced the story of Chuck Turner's arrest with the title "When a picture tells the story." Assuring people that "The pictures are damning" and that it was "highly doubtful" that they were fake, she then led her panel in a discussion emphasizing that the evidence against Turner was very "strong, very solid." A follow-up story drove home the point with the title "Incriminating pictures of Chuck Turner say a thousand words."
Rooney was not the only one anxious to rush to judgment. The day after Turner's arrest, the Boston Globe ran an editorial stressing the importance of removing bad apples like Turner from our political life. Local news stories mostly reported the FBI allegations as fact, pausing only to reflect on how terrible it was that corruption was undermining public confidence in our elected officials. Boston City Council President Maureen Feeney announced that she was removing Turner as chair of three city committees, and that a special City Council meeting to consider additional punishment. Although Turner had not yet been indicted - everything seemed to be going the FBI's way.
But to those who knew Chuck Turner best, something in the FBI charges just didn't make sense. Turner began to get strong support from his 7th District constituents, from the Green-Rainbow Party, and from respected community leaders. They cited Turner's 42-year history of integrity. They pointed out that on many occasions, when other politicians were taking campaign checks from big donors and selling out their community, it was only Chuck Turner who stood on the side of the people. They noted that Turner was one local leader who consistently spurned the party invitations from the City's well-heeled powerbrokers and spent his evenings meeting with his low income constituents in church basements and in his storefront district office. To many of his black and Latino constituents, Chuck was the only honest politician they had ever seen. He was the only one they could trust. They had a hard time reconciling the FBI accusations with the person they had known for years.
But what about those "damning" pictures? Perhaps the pictures say a thousand words. But not everyone agrees on what those thousand words are. Pictures have to be interpreted, especially when they are selectively released snippets of video from an undercover police force trying to lure a public figure into committing a crime. Competent journalists would ask whether the pictures prove the claims or merely illustrate the FBI's theory. They would ask what went on before and after the snippet of video that was released to the press. They would ask why the FBI decided to go to the media before going to the grand jury for an indictment. Such questions were notably lacking in the barrage of media coverage following Turner's arrest.
A little skepticism is understandable given the long history of questionable FBI motives in the targeting of suspects. In the 1960's and early 1970's, the FBI's infamous COINTELPRO operations targeted Martin Luther King, the NAACP, and Puerto Rican separatist movements under J. Edgar Hoover's orders to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the presumed subversives. Earlier this year the FBI was accused of political motivations in the targeting of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. In the end, the FBI could prove no crime against Spitzer. But in leaking information on Spitzer's sex life they succeeded in destroying the political career of a figure who was almost unique among prominent politicians in his willingness to take on the deception and dishonesty of wealthy Wall Street interests. The FBI also played a role in instigating charges of voter fraud against the ACORN community organization, which was involved in registering voters in minority neighborhoods. This follows a sustained push by the Bush Administration to act against the registration of black voters who they viewed as largely unfriendly to Republican candidates. It appears that ACORN will be found innocent, but the threat of prosecution hangs in the air.
A Closer Look at the FBI Affidavit
But what about the pictures? Before assuming that the FBI has an open-and-shut case, it is advisable to read the 11-page FBI affidavit that the FBI submitted to justify Turner's arrest. Although it is undoubtedly biased against Turner, it contains facts that raise serious questions about the significance of those pictures.
• The affidavit makes it clear that the FBI did not simply record a crime that was taking place. The FBI *created* the crime. The alleged $1000 bribe was FBI money handed to Turner by an FBI informant who had been carefully coached on how to make the act appear to be outside the law. If it were not for the FBI, no crime would have occurred.
• The only specific justification the affidavit offers for the FBI's interest in Turner is a statement by Ron Wilburn that he knew of one instance of Turner "taking a cash payment for writing a letter of recommendation for an individual with a criminal record." This sounds like Turner is involved in shady transactions with criminal elements. But Chuck Turner has lent a hand to many people trying to get their lives back together after exiting the correctional system. Turner has been a leading voice in calling for reform of the state's criminal offender record system (CORI) so that persons who leave prison are not unnecessarily barred from employment. An unsubstantiated claim that Turner took money for writing a letter of recommendation for an ex-offender is scarcely the kind of evidence that triggers an FBI sting operation. The real explanation for the FBI targeting appears to be missing from the affidavit.
• In order to make the act a crime, the FBI had to show that Turner had solicited the money from Ron Wilburn, their cooperating witness (CW). The affidavit says "TURNER then invited the CW to visit him at his district office in Roxbury, Massachusetts. The CW understood this call from TURNER to be a solicitation for a cash payment, similar to the three cash payments he had already made to Wilkerson." This is an admission that the FBI failed totally to elicit any verbal solicitation from Turner. They are reduced to citing a speculation attributed to their own informant. Turner is the only Boston City Councilor to maintain a district office - a small storefront facility that is the center of much community organizing. The FBI's assertion that Turner's use of his district office constitutes a solicitation to an illegal act appears to be a stretch needed to plug a hole in their case.
• The affidavit notes that prior to the bribery attempt, Turner had a rather peripheral involvement in Wilburn's efforts to obtain a liquor license. Turner has said that he looks favorably on the establishment of black-owned businesses in his district, and that he considered it a constituent service to advise black business owners on how to navigate the permitting processes. Significantly, there is no evidence that Turner asked for any money in exchange for any assistance he might have provided. This fact appears to bring into question the FBI allegation that Turner's involvement in the licensing was part of some shakedown scheme.
• The affidavit notes that on July 25, Wilburn had met with Turner and told him "If there's anything I can do to help you . . . you let me know and, and you got it." These words were apparently chosen to encourage Turner to ask for an illegal cash payment. But Turner did not respond by soliciting a bribe. The affidavit says that "TURNER then gave the CW the contact information for the individual who coordinated his fund raising events." It is significant that despite Wilburn's invitation to do "anything", Turner steered Wilburn toward a perfectly legal way for a constituent to show support for a politician. This bit of evidence seems to undermine the FBI contention that Turner was pursuing money under the table.
• What about the infamous August 3 tape that says a thousand words? During the taped visit, Turner never mentioned money and never asked for money. The money was handed to him with no solicitation at all. According to the affidavit, Turner nodded and said "okay" when the money was handed to him. If this is an accurate transcription, it is the only verbal indication in the entire affidavit that shows that Turner had any interest in money. But we do not really know what Turner was thinking at this point. The FBI assertion that Turner was accepting a bribe in connection with official duties is just one possibility, and it is the possibility that is least consistent with Turner's prior behavior. It is possible that Turner thought that Wilburn was trying in some clumsy way to make a campaign donation. Or Turner might have thought that the money was a donation to the district office unrelated to the liquor license. Or Turner may have just been surprised and not sure how to react to the sudden appearance of a wad of bills. Up to this point in time, the FBI has not made their case that a crime has been committed. The FBI picture, with the word "CASH" pointing to something in Turner's hand, is not really "damning" at all. At that point, Turner had committed no crime.
• Then there is the tape that the FBI did NOT release to the media. The affidavit states that on September 12 Wilburn came to Turner's City Hall office in a second attempt to get Turner to commit an offense. According to the affidavit "The CW was unable to discretely provide the cash to TURNER while TURNER's assistant stood nearby." But if Turner were really on the take, why didn't Turner ask the assistant to leave or invite Wilburn to meet privately in his office, or suggest a place to rendezvous later? It appears that Turner's assistant, and Turner himself, were not interested in facilitating any further cash transfers from the witness. This certainly runs counter to the FBI's assertion that Turner was in hot pursuit of illegal cash.
An argument can be made that at the point the FBI witness left Turner's office after the second failed bribery attempt, Turner had still done nothing for which he could be prosecuted. Yes, the FBI had handed Turner an unsolicited wad of bills for an unclear reason. But this was more a crime perpetrated by the FBI informant than a crime committed by Chuck Turner. Nevertheless, Turner had been ensnared in the net that the FBI had cast. He had several options, none of them very satisfying. He could have viewed the transaction as bribery and burned the witness by reporting him to the authorities. But if the witness were simply a misguided constituent, did he deserve to be prosecuted? Turner could have tried to return the money quietly, but this would have meant acknowledging that the cash was illegal and that Turner was not reporting the offense. He could have decided to view the money as a donation for paying the rent of the district office, with no connection to any of his official duties. No evidence has yet emerged regarding what Turner was thinking at this point.
Although the FBI's case was still weak after the second failed bribery attempt, the FBI knew that they had a chance to create an impression of guilt if they could get Turner to lie about Wilburn's August 3 visit. So FBI agents visited Turner and asked him about any cash received from the witness. At this point, one is legally required to provide full information to aid the FBI investigation. However, as the FBI knows, the target of an investigation seldom provides full disclosure in such cases. The target often feels some obligation not to betray the informant, whom he may view as an honest person who has somehow stumbled into trouble. The target may be suspicious of the FBI's motives, and fearful that they will misinterpret anything he says. It is a difficult position to be in. Turner fell into the trap. He denied knowing anything about the transaction. This gave the FBI something to use against him, irrespective of what had gone before.
In all this, we still haven't heard Turner's side of the story. Turner's legal team has insisted that he remain silent as they prepare a legal defense against the attempt to put him in prison for 25 years. The legal threat muzzles Turner while the FBI's video, and the FBI's interpretation of the video, is on the evening news. Putting targets in this disadvantageous position goes a long way toward achieving the destruction of a political career even though the underlying "evidence" may be refutable.
When shorn of speculation and innuendo, the FBI affidavit is a decidedly unconvincing document. It describes a crime fabricated by the FBI with no clear encouragement from Chuck Turner. And it undoubtedly leaves out details that would tend to cast doubt on the FBI's case. Turner may have made mistakes in how he handled the situation after the money was put in his hands. But failure to act effectively to distance oneself from an FBI-created crime is certainly different than being caught deliberately committing a crime.
Was Turner Already Targeted as an FBI Critic?
But is there any reason the FBI might feel hostility toward Chuck Turner? In 2005, an FBI sniper killed Puerto Rican separatist leader Ojeda Rios by shooting him through his kitchen window after an aborted attempt to storm his house. Because they let Rios lay on his kitchen floor without medical help for 18 hours, there was widespread anger in Puerto Rico by people who believed that the FBI had deliberately sought the death of Rios. A rally was held outside the FBI's Boston offices to demand an investigation into the shooting. People at the rally wore T-shirts that said "FBI Asesinos". Two Boston City Councilors spoke at the rally. One was Felix Arroyo. The other was Chuck Turner. It would be quite naive to assume that the FBI did not have undercover agents at that rally and that FBI files have not identified Chuck Turner as a critic of the FBI. One has to think that the FBI's eyes must have lit up when they realized that they in Ron Wilburn they had a confidential informant who might be able to get to Chuck Turner. While they have run editorials scoffing at the possibility of FBI bias in targeting of Turner, the Boston Globe has not seen fit to mention the Rios affair.
Targeting Policy Has Wider Implications
The Turner case has implications that go far beyond the question of whether a single individual has been induced to commit a crime. The question of how the FBI selects targets for such treatment is of paramount importance. Blackmail and concocted scandals are tools used by governments across the world to suppress political enemies. Sometimes the charge is bribery. Sometimes it is sex, drugs, pornography, helping an illegal immigrant, violating gun laws, or a morals charge that is sufficiently embarrassing to destroy a political career. The undercover police are very clever in picking the right offense to instigate, finding an informant that the target may trust, and steering the target toward a prosecutable offense. The people who are most likely to be targeted in a sting are those whom the power structure cannot implicate in actual crimes. It is the most honest, not the most corrupt, who must be brought down with concocted offenses. If the United States chooses a similar path, allowing its undercover police to selectively target political figures for destruction, then the nation is making a crucial decision to transfer power over its democracy to hidden, unaccountable police forces. These are serious implications that deserve discussion.
Given the full context, the question of why the FBI decided to target Turner is a critical one. Massachusetts politics is awash with private money given to influence political figures in their official acts. Payoffs for legislation are a well-documented way of life on Beacon Hill. The same newspapers that carried pictures of Chuck Turner being led away in handcuffs in a fake $1000 bribery case carried stories of a close associate of Speaker of the House Salvatori DiMasi who is reported to have collected $1,400,000 in unreported payments in return for influencing the award of a $17 million state software contract. With all the real money flowing between lobbyists and politicians, why did the FBI find it worth their while to go after one of the more honest office holders - who could be convicted only if the FBI itself concocted the crime?
Regardless of what happens to Chuck Turner, the targeting decisions of the FBI deserve to be investigated. If the FBI is targeting elected officials who criticize FBI infringements on civil liberties, then the citizens of this country need to know. Up to now, the major Boston media outlets have been uncritical allies in the FBI's game of character assassination. But people in the community are beginning to ask the right questions. And someday, even the FBI may have to answer.
John Andrews is a Massachusetts resident and Secretary of the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party.
