08-23-2016, 01:01 PM
@HiloPuna: Thanks for the reference, and I had read it. We obviously have differing interpretations. Page 6 of the Roth letter does indeed list prohibited purchases and goes on to say that "Exceptions may be granted by the Purchasing Card Administrator on a limited basis upon a showing of sufficient justification." You left out the rather important last half of the sentence in your last post.
I wish we had the Grand Jury minutes, but lacking them, it isn't too much of a stretch to think that the Attorney General's office was able to make the case that Kenoi's purchases were neither appropriately limited nor of sufficient justification to meet the allowable exceptions. While it would seem that Nancy Crawford was given some latitude, the way events played out, the mayor got indicted. And please don't use your tired "they can indict a ham sandwich" metaphor. Findings of "no true bill" happen all the time.
And being a realist, I still think Kenoi could easily walk.
I wish we had the Grand Jury minutes, but lacking them, it isn't too much of a stretch to think that the Attorney General's office was able to make the case that Kenoi's purchases were neither appropriately limited nor of sufficient justification to meet the allowable exceptions. While it would seem that Nancy Crawford was given some latitude, the way events played out, the mayor got indicted. And please don't use your tired "they can indict a ham sandwich" metaphor. Findings of "no true bill" happen all the time.
And being a realist, I still think Kenoi could easily walk.