by InfotainMe
Someone’s lying. Round 2.
Let’s rewind the tape a little, so to speak. We have reached this moment of crisis because councilman Russo told one story, the authors of The Jersey Sting told another, and someone had to be lying. The authors got tired of Russo’s act and cleared the air by releasing the FBI tapes Monday – leaving no doubt in anyone’s mind. Russo was lying. He was offered a bribe – multiple bribes – and he did accept.
And now just one day later we are at the same crossroads. Mason is telling one story, Russo is telling another, and someone has to be lying.
Russo says he picked Mason’s at-large ticket in 2009; he guaranteed Dwek a council majority that he (Russo) could manipulate on Dwek’s behalf. Mason says that’s a lie.
Mason has otherwise neither taken nor recommended disciplinary action in the matter of Russo v Hoboken. This is consistent with the tone of her letter to constituents yesterday, which falls squarely in the disappointed-to-petulant range rather than the more appropriate and natural outraged-to-heads-must-roll range. He has, after all, strongly made the case for an immediate and swift end to Ms. Mason’s political career.
She refers to Mr Russo’s “behavior” as “counter-productive”. She seems to be aiming for an extreme form of British understatement. Technically though, laundering a series of bribes through a PAC does constitute… “behavior”; and thoroughly trashing the public’s trust, showing willful contempt for pay-to-play laws, and guaranteeing site-unseen approval of a scoundrel’s every over-development fantasy does qualify as …“counter-productive”. One imagines Ms. Mason faulting a hurricane for being…messy or perhaps…inconvenient.
Thankfully it is not necessary to read past that magically insipid comment. It’s clear by then that the council president envisions no further need of consequences for the … behavior… and proceeds to the always paramount work of covering of the imperial ass, which takes up the rest of this letter and most likely the first half of the next as yet unpublished one.
However, that dumb, fat, happy dog won’t hunt. Not this time. Someone is lying. Someone needs to go – now, not May 10th.
We are not talking about bruised egos or disagreements in principle. We are talking about the promise of a massive betrayal of the public in exchange for bribes. Election-rigging, influence peddling, fast-tracking unexamined development projects. All dependent on Mr. Russo selecting Ms. Mason’s at-large ticket.
The easy assumption is that Mr. Russo was lying - again. After all, he lied about the content of the tapes in general. However, this particular lie –choosing Mason’s ticket - would have come to light very soon, and Russo would have had to explain to his erstwhile business partner why the council was not the malleably corrupt unit that he (Russo) had promised. The same is true of the special meeting he promised to arrange between Mason and Dwek. How could he turn around a few weeks later and say there would be no such meeting?
No, it makes much more sense that Russo was telling all or much of the truth in these matters. He could deliver for Dwek. That is, he could deliver Mason’s slate to Dwek. On a Light Horse Tavern platter. Watching him at that now infamous establishment, does he appear to be making up a story out of whole cloth, or selling goods he actually has to sell? Ms. Mason, Mr. Russo – we refuse to guess. You’re going to tell us. Now, not when you get around to it.
Ms Mason’s remarkably politically tone-deaf letter – which asserts that the Russo FBI tapes are crucial, not because of the May council elections but because of the upcoming budget hearings – does not even contemplate taking additional punitive steps apart from the aforementioned defense-of-derriere. She cites Russo’s previous claims that he had nothing to do with Mason’s ticket. But all this does is cause one to recollect that ‘her’ choices seemed suspicious from the get-go. In which case, isn’t she merely
reminding Russo of the script they had agreed on in a power-sharing arrangement? She seems to believe that she and Russo can simply “agree to disagree” and move on.
Agree to disagree? Are you out of your effing minds?
Ms. Mason – Mr. Russo is saying he conspired with you to rig the council majority to benefit developers making illegal contributions to get their projects fast-tracked and approved. This is not simply a difference of opinions; the relevant acronym is RICO.
Even if he is lying he can no longer be part of any committee that has the word “Finance” in the title. Nor can he be vice president of the council, and thus council president during your vacations; not after promising illicit results to developers on FBI surveillance tapes. The public has earned the right to be repulsed by the very idea. Surely you see that. Wait for this to blow over – as you appear poised to do - and you can have no possible credibility as an municipal executive. That is not what executives do.
Mr. Russo, if you did in fact determine or help to determine Ms. Mason’s at-large ticket, the public has a right to know. Likewise if Ms. Mason gave direct or tacit approval for you to present her as part of a package of “friendly” city services to developers with big checkbooks, the public has a right to know.
One of you is lying. We either have a lying influence-peddler making false promises on behalf of a mayoral candidate; a lying mayoral candidate who did in fact conspire with the influence-peddler; or perhaps a little of both.
There is no moving forward from this point until you settle this once and for all to the public’s satisfaction. This is not your private affair. We can’t look at the two of you up there at the council table with the stench of these accusations hanging in the air and pretend to be watching anything like a dignified proceeding. It’s more like watching a bunch of unsavory characters milling around in front of Macy’s and wondering which ones are pick-pockets.
It’s not as if we haven’t seen you play fast and loose with easily verifiable facts, Ms. Mason, so don’t assume that we will assume Mr. Russo is the only one lying. You will not be clumsily arranging it so Mr. Bajardi has the last word either. The last word is not yours to grant. That belongs to the court of public opinion. Which has no choice at this moment but to assume you’re both guilty. Just wanted to make sure that you understand what you are agreeing to if you choose to ‘agree to disagree’ this time.
“This supposed to be a happy occasion - let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who.”
-Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Someone’s lying. Round 2.
Let’s rewind the tape a little, so to speak. We have reached this moment of crisis because councilman Russo told one story, the authors of The Jersey Sting told another, and someone had to be lying. The authors got tired of Russo’s act and cleared the air by releasing the FBI tapes Monday – leaving no doubt in anyone’s mind. Russo was lying. He was offered a bribe – multiple bribes – and he did accept.
And now just one day later we are at the same crossroads. Mason is telling one story, Russo is telling another, and someone has to be lying.
Russo says he picked Mason’s at-large ticket in 2009; he guaranteed Dwek a council majority that he (Russo) could manipulate on Dwek’s behalf. Mason says that’s a lie.
Mason has otherwise neither taken nor recommended disciplinary action in the matter of Russo v Hoboken. This is consistent with the tone of her letter to constituents yesterday, which falls squarely in the disappointed-to-petulant range rather than the more appropriate and natural outraged-to-heads-must-roll range. He has, after all, strongly made the case for an immediate and swift end to Ms. Mason’s political career.
She refers to Mr Russo’s “behavior” as “counter-productive”. She seems to be aiming for an extreme form of British understatement. Technically though, laundering a series of bribes through a PAC does constitute… “behavior”; and thoroughly trashing the public’s trust, showing willful contempt for pay-to-play laws, and guaranteeing site-unseen approval of a scoundrel’s every over-development fantasy does qualify as …“counter-productive”. One imagines Ms. Mason faulting a hurricane for being…messy or perhaps…inconvenient.
Thankfully it is not necessary to read past that magically insipid comment. It’s clear by then that the council president envisions no further need of consequences for the … behavior… and proceeds to the always paramount work of covering of the imperial ass, which takes up the rest of this letter and most likely the first half of the next as yet unpublished one.
However, that dumb, fat, happy dog won’t hunt. Not this time. Someone is lying. Someone needs to go – now, not May 10th.
We are not talking about bruised egos or disagreements in principle. We are talking about the promise of a massive betrayal of the public in exchange for bribes. Election-rigging, influence peddling, fast-tracking unexamined development projects. All dependent on Mr. Russo selecting Ms. Mason’s at-large ticket.
The easy assumption is that Mr. Russo was lying - again. After all, he lied about the content of the tapes in general. However, this particular lie –choosing Mason’s ticket - would have come to light very soon, and Russo would have had to explain to his erstwhile business partner why the council was not the malleably corrupt unit that he (Russo) had promised. The same is true of the special meeting he promised to arrange between Mason and Dwek. How could he turn around a few weeks later and say there would be no such meeting?
No, it makes much more sense that Russo was telling all or much of the truth in these matters. He could deliver for Dwek. That is, he could deliver Mason’s slate to Dwek. On a Light Horse Tavern platter. Watching him at that now infamous establishment, does he appear to be making up a story out of whole cloth, or selling goods he actually has to sell? Ms. Mason, Mr. Russo – we refuse to guess. You’re going to tell us. Now, not when you get around to it.
Ms Mason’s remarkably politically tone-deaf letter – which asserts that the Russo FBI tapes are crucial, not because of the May council elections but because of the upcoming budget hearings – does not even contemplate taking additional punitive steps apart from the aforementioned defense-of-derriere. She cites Russo’s previous claims that he had nothing to do with Mason’s ticket. But all this does is cause one to recollect that ‘her’ choices seemed suspicious from the get-go. In which case, isn’t she merely
reminding Russo of the script they had agreed on in a power-sharing arrangement? She seems to believe that she and Russo can simply “agree to disagree” and move on.
Agree to disagree? Are you out of your effing minds?
Ms. Mason – Mr. Russo is saying he conspired with you to rig the council majority to benefit developers making illegal contributions to get their projects fast-tracked and approved. This is not simply a difference of opinions; the relevant acronym is RICO.
Even if he is lying he can no longer be part of any committee that has the word “Finance” in the title. Nor can he be vice president of the council, and thus council president during your vacations; not after promising illicit results to developers on FBI surveillance tapes. The public has earned the right to be repulsed by the very idea. Surely you see that. Wait for this to blow over – as you appear poised to do - and you can have no possible credibility as an municipal executive. That is not what executives do.
Mr. Russo, if you did in fact determine or help to determine Ms. Mason’s at-large ticket, the public has a right to know. Likewise if Ms. Mason gave direct or tacit approval for you to present her as part of a package of “friendly” city services to developers with big checkbooks, the public has a right to know.
One of you is lying. We either have a lying influence-peddler making false promises on behalf of a mayoral candidate; a lying mayoral candidate who did in fact conspire with the influence-peddler; or perhaps a little of both.
There is no moving forward from this point until you settle this once and for all to the public’s satisfaction. This is not your private affair. We can’t look at the two of you up there at the council table with the stench of these accusations hanging in the air and pretend to be watching anything like a dignified proceeding. It’s more like watching a bunch of unsavory characters milling around in front of Macy’s and wondering which ones are pick-pockets.
It’s not as if we haven’t seen you play fast and loose with easily verifiable facts, Ms. Mason, so don’t assume that we will assume Mr. Russo is the only one lying. You will not be clumsily arranging it so Mr. Bajardi has the last word either. The last word is not yours to grant. That belongs to the court of public opinion. Which has no choice at this moment but to assume you’re both guilty. Just wanted to make sure that you understand what you are agreeing to if you choose to ‘agree to disagree’ this time.
The only way I believe anything Mason says is if she is on sodium pentathol when she says it. She has lied too often in the past for my taste.
ReplyDeleteHis & Hers Crimes:
ReplyDeleteCriminal consipiracy - (Russo)
and influence peddling - (Mason)are both criminal offenses.
The City of Hoboken should demand that the Hudson County Prosecutor take action immediately.
Once again INFO, nicely put.
ReplyDelete