Republicans Call For Fischer Investigation

That didn’t take long.

In a letter to the Attorney General, Republican Party of Kentucky chairman Steve Robertson calls for an investigation into the Greg Fischer – Jackie Green election fraud mess.

Here’s the text of the letter:

October 20, 2010

Office of the Attorney General
Attention Attorney General Jack Conway
Capitol Suite 118
700 Capitol Avenue
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-3449
Fax: 502-564-2894

Transmitted via facsimile

Dear Attorney General Conway:

As I am sure you are aware, some very disturbing allegations have surfaced in the Louisville Mayoral race involving Democrat candidate Greg Fischer and a quid-pro-quo deal he cut with Independent candidate Jackie Green. According to today’s article in the Leo Weekly, it appears that Fischer’s campaign may have agreed to appoint Green to a high-paying government job if Green would drop out of the race and endorse Fischer’s candidacy. The Leo even included alarming email excerpts between the campaigns evidencing such an agreement. Shortly after this alleged deal was cut, Green did, in fact, drop out of the race and endorse Fischer.

As you should know, Kentucky law prohibits candidates from making a promise, agreement or contract with any person in order to secure that person’s vote, financial or moral support (KRS 121.055). Further, any candidate who knowingly violates this law is guilty of a Class D felony (KRS 121.990[3]).

The allegations against Greg Fischer are serious and potentially criminal in nature. As Attorney General, you have an obligation to investigate and prosecute election fraud and public corruption. However, according to the Registry of Election Finance, you have contributed $1000 to Greg Fischer’s campaign. Your financial relationship with Mr. Fischer’s campaign renders you incapable of providing objective leadership on any investigation of these allegations. Therefore, I call on you to recuse yourself from this matter entirely and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this potentially criminal activity.

You have repeatedly said you will put the people of the Commonwealth ahead of partisan politics. This is your opportunity to prove it. I hope you will take this matter seriously and take immediate action. The voters of Louisville deserve to know the truth about Greg Fischer and any corrupt back-room deals he may have cut for political gain. Doing nothing about this situation or brushing it under the rug is simply unacceptable and a dereliction of your duties as Attorney General of Kentucky.


Steve Robertson
Chairman/Republican Party of Kentucky

If Conway takes this up, he’ll have to appoint a special prosecutor who will then likely work with the KSP’s special investigations unit.

Will upload the PDF in just a minute.

15 thoughts on “Republicans Call For Fischer Investigation

  1. Thus the RPK delivers a turkey stuffed with two bombs.

    A bomb for Hal Heiner by reminding Democratic sympathizers of his party affiliation (baggage best forgotten).

    And another bomb, for Jack Conway, by forcing him to piss off either of two constituencies he needs: Democrats for Fischer and Republicans for Heiner.

    Only in Kentucky politics are there plot twists like this.

  2. The Conway bit is a no-go. He’d have to appoint a special prosecutor, effectively washing his hands.

    If he ignores it, then that’s a problem.

    If people aren’t going to vote for Heiner because he’s a Republican, this won’t change anything.

  3. Show me the e-mails!
    Of course, the republicans want to stir some shit. If there’s proof on the written page then why spend the tax dollars for an investigation? If not, then drop it so we can all move on.

  4. You can read, right? Then read our previous stories. The emails have been on this website for days. Try actually clicking the links in the story before you comment. (You would have seen a few of them.)

    Republicans? It’s liberal Democrats leading the charge.

    Why investigate? Because there’s no way to know if emails leaked are the only ones discussing the matter. And there’s bound to be additional evidence that could help or hinder. That’s how things work. You don’t just take someone’s word for it.

  5. Jake: That’s why you have grand juries that are operated by the Commonwealth Attorney (if he wasn’t part of the problem).

  6. The local Commonwealth’s Attorney wouldn’t likely be appointed special prosecutor. It’d be someone with no ties. Much like with the Steve Henry case.

  7. You would have thought that Fischer would have an army of lawyers in the 350. I didn’t like hearing at all “KRS whatever”.

    I keep thinking there is something here that hasn’t been explored. The law refers to trading something of value for a vote. I can’t see how establishing an Office of Sustainabilily is something of value. In fact, given the scope, it most likely shows up on the other side of the balance sheet. An what we have here is an endorsement. I dare say that there has been many a candidate concede, endorse, and in the confines of the voting booth pull their own lever. I know this is parsing but this is politics…

  8. “No candidate for nomination or election to any state, county, city or district office shall expend, pay, promise, loan or become liable in any way for money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, to any person in consideration of the vote or financial or moral support of that person. No such candidate shall promise, agree or make a contract with any person to vote for or support any particular individual, thing or measure, in consideration for the vote or the financial or moral support of that person in any election, primary or nominating convention, and no person shall require that any candidate make such a promise, agreement or contract.”

    That’s the law I know. And in the broad sense of give and take in politics every politician that promises to do something that his voters, who will cast a vote for such lawbreaking politician, is committing a felony?

  9. Making a broad promise to the public about what your platform is… is not the same as putting a written agreement in place with someone in exchange for them dropping out of a race and endorsing.

  10. Did I say that? Nope. Don’t put words in my mouth.

    My point: a candidate tells voters what they’re going to do. There is no agreement made verbally or orally. That’s not illegal.

    When you put something in writing with an opponent and offer them something in exchange for their endorsement – something they seek, as well, and spend days discussing with their circle – that’s major.

Comments are closed.