This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/nyregion/mayor-bill-de-blasio-investigation-no-criminal-charges.html

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 6 Version 7
No Charges, but Harsh Criticism for de Blasio’s Fund-Raising No Charges, but Harsh Criticism for de Blasio’s Fund-Raising
(about 1 hour later)
Federal and state prosecutors said on Thursday that they would not bring criminal charges against Mayor Bill de Blasio or his aides following separate lengthy investigations, even as they harshly criticized the mayor’s fund-raising practices and said that he and his aides had failed to abide by the “intent and spirit” of the law. Federal and state prosecutors said on Thursday that they would not bring criminal charges against Mayor Bill de Blasio or his aides following separate lengthy investigations, even as one concluded that the mayor acted on behalf of donors seeking favors from the city and the other said that some of their practices appeared to violate “the intent and spirit” of the law.”
The federal inquiry found a pattern in which the mayor or his associates solicited contributions from donors seeking favors from the city and then contacted city agencies on their behalf, according to a statement from the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York. But the decision not to bring charges, the statement said, came after weighing among other things, “the high burden of proof, the clarity of existing law, any recent changes in the law and the particular difficulty in proving criminal intent in corruption schemes where there is no evidence of personal profit.” The disclosures were unusual; prosecutors rarely announce the conclusion of such inquiries when charges are not brought.
State prosecutors, who examined Mr. de Blasio’s unsuccessful 2014 effort to help Democrats regain control of the State Senate, concluded that they could not prove each element of the crimes that they considered charging beyond a reasonable doubt, according to a letter outlining their findings. The letter said this was because the mayor and those involved in the fund-raising effort had relied on the advice of their lawyers, a valid defense in a criminal case and because of ambiguities in the way the election law statutes were written. The federal inquiry found a pattern in which Mr. de Blasio or his associates solicited contributions from donors seeking favors from the city and then contacted city agencies on their behalf, according to a statement from the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York. But the decision not to bring charges, the statement said, came after weighing among other things, “the high burden of proof, the clarity of existing law” and challenge of proving corruption without “evidence of personal profit.”
Mr. de Blasio, who was interviewed by Brian Lehrer on WNYC shortly after the prosecutors released their findngs, was quick to try to put the issue behind him. State prosecutors, who examined Mr. de Blasio’s unsuccessful 2014 effort to help Democrats regain control of the State Senate, concluded that the aspects of the undertaking amounted to an “end run” around limits on contributions to candidates, according to a 10-page letter outlining their findings.
“I’ll just say simply it’s been basically a year, I’ve said consistently that we acted appropriately,” he told Mr. Lehrer. “This confirms what I’ve been saying and what all my colleagues have been saying.” He added, “We gotta get back to work.” Mr. de Blasio was quick to try to put the issue behind him.
“I’ll just say simply it’s been basically a year, I’ve said consistently that we acted appropriately,” he told Brian Lehrer on WNYC shorter after the prosecutors released their findings. “This confirms what I’ve been saying and what all my colleagues have been saying.” He added, “We gotta get back to work. My focus now is getting back to business.”
The federal inquiry involved a broad examination of whether Mr. de Blasio or his administration or campaign aides exchanged favorable city action for donations to his 2013 campaign or his now-defunct political nonprofit, the Campaign for One New York. The state inquiry was more narrowly focused on whether the mayor or his aides violated state election law in 2014 by directing campaign donations to county committees to evade limits on contributions to individual candidates in the State Senate.The federal inquiry involved a broad examination of whether Mr. de Blasio or his administration or campaign aides exchanged favorable city action for donations to his 2013 campaign or his now-defunct political nonprofit, the Campaign for One New York. The state inquiry was more narrowly focused on whether the mayor or his aides violated state election law in 2014 by directing campaign donations to county committees to evade limits on contributions to individual candidates in the State Senate.
The decisions by the two offices that handled the inquiries were disclosed separately on Thursday morning, but the timing was coordinated. The United States attorney’s office, along with the F.B.I., conducted the federal investigation and the Manhattan district attorney’s office oversaw the state one, assisted by the F.B.I.The decisions by the two offices that handled the inquiries were disclosed separately on Thursday morning, but the timing was coordinated. The United States attorney’s office, along with the F.B.I., conducted the federal investigation and the Manhattan district attorney’s office oversaw the state one, assisted by the F.B.I.
The two prosecutors’ offices conducted the simultaneous investigations for more than a year, during which time the mayor had repeatedly said that he, his administration and his campaign aides had always acted within the law. Mr. de Blasio was interviewed by both offices, most recently by federal prosecutors for four hours on Feb. 24.The two prosecutors’ offices conducted the simultaneous investigations for more than a year, during which time the mayor had repeatedly said that he, his administration and his campaign aides had always acted within the law. Mr. de Blasio was interviewed by both offices, most recently by federal prosecutors for four hours on Feb. 24.
The disclosure that neither the mayor nor his administration or campaign aides will face charges is a victory for the mayor, though perhaps a tainted one for the first-term Democrat who has been dogged by a steady stream of media reports about the investigations, and who is gearing up to run for re-election in November.The disclosure that neither the mayor nor his administration or campaign aides will face charges is a victory for the mayor, though perhaps a tainted one for the first-term Democrat who has been dogged by a steady stream of media reports about the investigations, and who is gearing up to run for re-election in November.
The United States attorney’s office, which until Saturday was headed by Preet Bharara, released its brief statement on Thursday morning (Mr. Bharara was fired over the weekend by the Trump administration and replaced by his deputy, Joon H. Kim); the Manhattan district attorney’s office, headed by Cyrus R. Vance Jr. disclosed its findings in a 10-page letter to the state Board of Elections official whose Jan. 4, 2016, referral prompted Mr. Vance’s inquiry. The United States attorney’s office, which until Saturday was headed by Preet Bharara, announced its decision in a brief statement on (Mr. Bharara was fired over the weekend by the Trump administration and replaced by his deputy, Joon H. Kim); the Manhattan district attorney’s office, headed by Cyrus R. Vance Jr. disclosed its findings in a 10-page letter to the state Board of Elections official whose Jan. 4, 2016, referral prompted Mr. Vance’s inquiry.
Both disclosures were unusual, in that prosecutors seldom announce the conclusion of such inquiries.
In his statement, Mr. Kim said investigators had examined several instances in which the mayor and “others acting on his behalf” solicited donations from people who were seeking “official favors from the city, after which the mayor made or directed inquiries to relevant city agencies on behalf of those donors.”In his statement, Mr. Kim said investigators had examined several instances in which the mayor and “others acting on his behalf” solicited donations from people who were seeking “official favors from the city, after which the mayor made or directed inquiries to relevant city agencies on behalf of those donors.”
“After careful deliberation,” the statement said, “given the totality of the circumstances here and absent additional evidence, we do not intend to bring federal criminal charges against the mayor or those acting on his behalf relating to the fund-raising efforts in question. “After careful deliberation,” the statement said, “given the totality of the circumstances here and absent additional evidence, we do not intend to bring federal criminal charges against the mayor or those acting on his behalf relating to the fund-raising efforts in question,” the statement said. Among the reasons he cited were “any changes in the law,” an apparent reference to a recent United States Supreme Court decision overturning the conviction of the former Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell, a ruling that made it harder to prosecute public corruption cases.
“Although it is rare that we issue a public statement about the status of an investigation, we believe it appropriate in this case at this time, in order not to unduly influence the upcoming campaign and mayoral election,” the statement said.“Although it is rare that we issue a public statement about the status of an investigation, we believe it appropriate in this case at this time, in order not to unduly influence the upcoming campaign and mayoral election,” the statement said.
In his letter, Mr. Vance said the office’s conclusion was “not an endorsement of the conduct at issue.”In his letter, Mr. Vance said the office’s conclusion was “not an endorsement of the conduct at issue.”
The letter said that they could not prove each element of the crimes that they considered charging beyond a reasonable doubt, because the mayor and those involved in the effort had relied on the advice of their lawyers, a valid defense in a criminal case, and because of ambiguities in the way the election law statutes were written.
“The transactions appear contrary to the intent and spirit of the laws that impose candidate contribution limits, laws which are meant to prevent ‘corruption and the appearance of corruption’ in the campaign financing process,” he wrote.“The transactions appear contrary to the intent and spirit of the laws that impose candidate contribution limits, laws which are meant to prevent ‘corruption and the appearance of corruption’ in the campaign financing process,” he wrote.