After the sentencing of former Rep. Nathan Cooper, R-Cape Girardeau, Monday to 15 months in prison, Peggy Lee said it best- "Is that all there is?"
Court documents indicated the government had already nailed Cooper dead to rights on immigration fraud charges well before Cooper stood for re-election and was returned to his post. Why did the federal government allow the residents of Cooper's Cape Girardeau district to elect a criminal?
If the reason was to nab a bigger fish, that certainly failed miserably. The only person indicted by the federal grand jury was Omega "Meg" Paulite of Seattle and charges were quietly and quickly dropped against her, which would probably not even have been noticed if The Turner Report had not been following the case.
Another question I would love to see answered- Who are these people who thought enough of Cooper to write letters to the judge, which may have had something to do with Cooper receiving a lighter sentenced than anticipated.
Rudi Keller of the Cape Girardeau Southeast Missourian offers a solid report on Cooper's sentencing:
The sentence handed down to the Cape Girardeau Republican represents about half of what both Schwartz and assistant federal prosecutor Jim Crowe had said was likely following Cooper's Aug. 9 guilty plea on the two felony counts. At that time, Crowe and Schwartz said sentencing guidelines indicated that Cooper would serve 30 to 37 months.
Before sentencing, Schwartz sought to portray Cooper's actions as well-intentioned mistakes. He told Hamilton that Cooper "did what he could to help those who need it."
And Cooper's paid a heavy price, Schwartz said. Cooper resigned his Missouri House seat Aug. 14, had his right to practice law in state courts suspended by the Missouri Supreme Court in August and had his federal licenses suspended by the U.S. District Court in October.
"Mr. Cooper has lost the two things most dear to him -- his political career and his legal career."
Crowe, however, portrayed Cooper as a sharp operator who disregarded the law as he cut corners for clients.
1 comment:
That's pretty much the same question Pete Domenici got in so much trouble for asking U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias. As you should recall, Domenici was concerned that Iglesias was foot dragging in a probe of Democratic corruption as the 2006 election approached, potentially allowing corrupt officials to be reelected. The answer to both his question and yours is, basically, that the office of the US Attorney exists to prosecute criminal conduct, not to swing elections.
Post a Comment