Cindi gets the Wilson-Quinn memo issue just right

Cindi got it exactly right in this column:

Here’s an excerpt from the column:

So Mr. Wilson was not asking for advice from a target of the investigation, which would have been a resign or be removed from office sort of infraction. And worse.Wilson cropped

What he was doing — what no prosecutor should do — was consulting his political adviser about a criminal case. Mr. Wilson points out that he was not asking how to prosecute a case. He says his concern was to get through the exchange with “a cordial relationship” with Mr. Pascoe intact; and indeed, Mr. Quinn suggested removing some snark and making the letter more diplomatic. (In the end, Mr. Wilson called Mr. Pascoe rather than sending a letter.)

But the underlying topic was still a criminal matter.

Pretend that Mr. Wilson’s consultant had been named John Smith or Jane Jones or anything other than Richard Quinn. Pretend that his political consultant had never met Richard Quinn or Rick Quinn or Jim Merrill. Pretend that Alan Wilson was the only South Carolinian his political consultant had ever heard of. It still would have been inappropriate for Mr. Wilson to consult him. It simply is not acceptable for a prosecutor to seek political advice about anything involving his job as a prosecutor….

The point here is that the memo was sent at a time when there was little or no reason to suspect that Quinn would at some time be a central figure in the investigation. So all that stuff from the Democrats about how Wilson should resign or be fired is off-base.

But it is improper for a prosecutor to seek political advice on how he’s dealing with a criminal investigation. The fact that all elected AGs most likely do it is no excuse.

So, if and when Wilson faces re-election to his post, and voters are tallying the pros and cons as to whether to vote for him, this should go in the “con” column. And that’s about it.

4 thoughts on “Cindi gets the Wilson-Quinn memo issue just right

  1. Doug Ross

    “con” may have multiple meanings in his case eventually.

    But since no Democrat can win that office, which Republican would be willing to step up and take him on? Although I would assume that if the Quinns are found guilty of some major criminal activity under Wilson’s watch, that he would do the right thing and not seek re-election.

  2. Mark Stewart

    Wilson knew when he wrote that the guy he was soliciting advice from was the FATHER of a named target of the investigation. Good grief!

    “That’s about it” isn’t correct with addressing this fact.

    1. Mark Stewart

      Okay, I read her entire column; I agree with her on what she said.

      But the idea of whether someone is a “target” or not in an investigation shouldn’t matter – anyone even mentioned in the SLED report should not be someone the freakin’ Attorney General is in communication with about the case. Especially when it’s about strategic communications as to how the AG is maneuvering to regain control of the case from his designated special counsel because he doesn’t like where the investigation is headed.

      This isn’t a yellow card infraction for the voters to consider next election; I think she got this part wrong.

      I remain unconvinced that this is not a removal from office, indictment and disbarment situation. We shall see in the coming months…

      1. Doug Ross

        “I remain unconvinced that this is not a removal from office, indictment and disbarment situation. We shall see in the coming months…”

        Agreed. But who can start that process who isn’t somehow connected to Quinn? The incestuous nature of SC (well, all) politics prevents even simple tasks of removing unethical people from office.


Comments are closed.