Read Online An Almost Perfect Murder by Gary C. King - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Gary C. King
Ads: Link
chunk.”
As part of her apology, Kathy agreed that the people of the state were disappointed in her, but she stressed that she wanted to continue as controller. She said that she was “willing and able, and would like to finish the job” that the people elected her to do.
One of Kathy’s attorneys, Dominic Gentile, stated that two of the primary witnesses against his client lacked credibility, and suggested that other state politicians might get dragged through the mud if things turned particularly ugly. He said that Kathy’s admission that she should have been aware that her employees were working on her campaign during normal work hours was not the same as giving them orders to do the work on state time.
“What she admitted to was that she did not know it was going on,” Gentile said. “But it happened on her watch and she should have known, and she accepted the responsibility for it. That does not rise to the level of malfeasance in office.”
Gentile said that Kathy has denied that she had ever ordered any of her employees to work on her campaign, and suggested to television news reporters that if his client “goes down,” she won’t be going down by herself.
As Kathy’s impeachment trial finally got under way on Wednesday, December 1, 2004, before the twenty-one members of the senate, her attorneys described her as a “mean boss” who was known to throw paper and to have loud outbursts in the office related to her temper. Her lead attorney, John Arrascada, used a PowerPoint presentation to accentuate his point. In one slide, he presented a photo of a painting that depicted an angry mob during the French Revolution congregating around a guillotine, and in another a portrait of Joan of Arc decked out in armor with a halo that encircled her head. Arrascada’s argument was that his client’s ethics violations really hadn’t harmed the citizens of Nevada and did not deserve what he termed the political “death penalty.” Such a penalty, he had said, might not only serve to remove her from office, but could serve as the death knell of her political career. He argued that she was a victim of a vengeful grudge being perpetrated by unhappy former employees who had been unable to cope with her often challenging and uncompromising management style. His argument was reminiscent of that presented by President Bill Clinton’s lawyers during the opening of his impeachment trial in 1999.
“We know that Kathy Augustine is not a saint,” Arrascada said. “We also know that she has not committed offenses that rise up to the level that require removal from office.”
It was clear that Arrascada’s legal tactics, which he admitted to in later interviews, was to lay strong emphasis on the unfortunate prospect of setting a precedent of removing an elected off icial from off ice, while at the same time playing down her unpleasant character traits. He realized from the trial’s outset that it would be difficult to conjure up sympathy among Kathy’s colleagues—from either party. Despite her often unpleasant personality, though, few could deny the efficiency with which Kathy ran her office.
After taking the senate jury through the list of allegations, he emphasized the historic nature of the impeachment trial and cautioned that the senate would be setting a standard for any future similar actions. At one point, he implied that the ethics commission’s unforgiving findings and the $15,000 fine, which they had imposed on her, were sufficient punishment for the violations.
“Impeachment and removal is only for the worst of the worst,” Arrascada argued. “What is the harm to the public of letting Kathy Augustine finish her term? Where do we set the bar for what constitutes an impeachable offense in this state?”
On the other hand, Special Prosecutor Dan Greco argued that the “unique and historic constitutional exercise” taking place before the senate was the direct result of the defendant’s deliberate
As part of her apology, Kathy agreed that the people of the state were disappointed in her, but she stressed that she wanted to continue as controller. She said that she was “willing and able, and would like to finish the job” that the people elected her to do.
One of Kathy’s attorneys, Dominic Gentile, stated that two of the primary witnesses against his client lacked credibility, and suggested that other state politicians might get dragged through the mud if things turned particularly ugly. He said that Kathy’s admission that she should have been aware that her employees were working on her campaign during normal work hours was not the same as giving them orders to do the work on state time.
“What she admitted to was that she did not know it was going on,” Gentile said. “But it happened on her watch and she should have known, and she accepted the responsibility for it. That does not rise to the level of malfeasance in office.”
Gentile said that Kathy has denied that she had ever ordered any of her employees to work on her campaign, and suggested to television news reporters that if his client “goes down,” she won’t be going down by herself.
As Kathy’s impeachment trial finally got under way on Wednesday, December 1, 2004, before the twenty-one members of the senate, her attorneys described her as a “mean boss” who was known to throw paper and to have loud outbursts in the office related to her temper. Her lead attorney, John Arrascada, used a PowerPoint presentation to accentuate his point. In one slide, he presented a photo of a painting that depicted an angry mob during the French Revolution congregating around a guillotine, and in another a portrait of Joan of Arc decked out in armor with a halo that encircled her head. Arrascada’s argument was that his client’s ethics violations really hadn’t harmed the citizens of Nevada and did not deserve what he termed the political “death penalty.” Such a penalty, he had said, might not only serve to remove her from office, but could serve as the death knell of her political career. He argued that she was a victim of a vengeful grudge being perpetrated by unhappy former employees who had been unable to cope with her often challenging and uncompromising management style. His argument was reminiscent of that presented by President Bill Clinton’s lawyers during the opening of his impeachment trial in 1999.
“We know that Kathy Augustine is not a saint,” Arrascada said. “We also know that she has not committed offenses that rise up to the level that require removal from office.”
It was clear that Arrascada’s legal tactics, which he admitted to in later interviews, was to lay strong emphasis on the unfortunate prospect of setting a precedent of removing an elected off icial from off ice, while at the same time playing down her unpleasant character traits. He realized from the trial’s outset that it would be difficult to conjure up sympathy among Kathy’s colleagues—from either party. Despite her often unpleasant personality, though, few could deny the efficiency with which Kathy ran her office.
After taking the senate jury through the list of allegations, he emphasized the historic nature of the impeachment trial and cautioned that the senate would be setting a standard for any future similar actions. At one point, he implied that the ethics commission’s unforgiving findings and the $15,000 fine, which they had imposed on her, were sufficient punishment for the violations.
“Impeachment and removal is only for the worst of the worst,” Arrascada argued. “What is the harm to the public of letting Kathy Augustine finish her term? Where do we set the bar for what constitutes an impeachable offense in this state?”
On the other hand, Special Prosecutor Dan Greco argued that the “unique and historic constitutional exercise” taking place before the senate was the direct result of the defendant’s deliberate
Similar Books
