If you have solid tips, news or documents on potential ethical violations or abuses of power, we want to know. Send us your suggestions. 
Unfortunately I believe that we are limited in what we can focus on. I think that if we proceed with the partisan sideshow of prosecuting Bush admin. officials, healthcare will get lost in the brouhaha.
The Washington Post's permanent investigative unit was set up in 1982 under Bob Woodward.
Liability for D.C. Tax Scandal?
As investigators continue to look into milllions of dollars stolen from the District's Office of Tax Revenue, one potential way for the city to recover some of its losses has been stalled by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's top legal adviser, Peter Nickles.
Nickels ordered the former city attorney general, Linda Singer, not to pursue a civil lawsuit against the Bank of America for cashing fraudulent checks. One of the bank's former employees was arrested in the scandal. The FBI affidavits charging the bank employee and his alleged co-conspirators said he helped cash checks and moved money through accounts set up for fraudulent businesses. A Washington Post analysis of all suspicious checks to those and other businesses showed that more than $44 million may have been stolen.
By The Editors |
January 28, 2008; 1:04 PM ET
D.C. Region
Previous: Newspaper Obtains Detroit Mayor's Text Messages |
Next: Child Deaths Continue
Posted by: Kblit | January 28, 2008 3:45 PM
I personally don't understand the decision, but Nickels is hardly an idiot. He's been doing complex litigation for years, so I suspect has a pretty good idea of how best to handle things. And I doubt it make a completely idiotic decision on this. I don't mean to defend him, because he seems to be a bit like a bull in a china shop these days. But I very much doubt this is an incompetent decision.
Posted by: ah | January 28, 2008 3:57 PM
ah, you're right, it wasn't incompetent, but it appears to smell a bit of special interest. Bank of America is one of Nickles' old law firm's star clients. It would appear that Nickles was giving an old client preferential treatment, possibly angling to return to his old firm (at a vastly increased salary and/or partnership % arrangement) once he leaves "public service"....
Posted by: Huh? | January 28, 2008 4:49 PM
As disturbing as Nickle's substantive decision was is the peremptory, rude and arrogant way he treated the Attorney General, in the name of the Mayor.
Posted by: Nickles Critic | January 28, 2008 6:09 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
It is time for the mayor to dump Mr. Nickels. This is similar to Pres Chaney and VP Bush. So who is really in charge?
But the "buck stops" at the mayor's desk even though it is obvious that it, the tax deal, did not start there.