Decker pleads guilty
Former Rep. Michael Decker pleaded guilty to extortion charges in connection with his role in the 2002 agreement that kept Speaker Jim Black in power. A few quick thoughts before I go back to reporting on this:
- I did not, until I heard the federal prosecutor read the charges against Decker, think that Black was in any real danger of incurring a serious criminal penalty in all this. The charges read out today suggest otherwise.
- If this had come down while the honorables were still in session, it would have been absolute pandemonium at the legislature.
- It is hot as blazes out today, as an hour on the sidewalk in front of the federal building here in Raleigh will teach you real fast.
Decker had no comment as he left the courthouse. More to come.
Update: More on this:
- N+R Op Ed writer Doug Clark weighs in.
- The N.C. GOP has its say.
Black’s office say they’ll have a statement shortly.
Update: Here's the statement from Black's office:
RALEIGH -- Below is a statement from Ken Bell, attorney for N.C. House Speaker Jim Black, D-Mecklenburg, in response to today's guilty plea by former Rep. Michael Decker, (R-Forsyth):"It was obvious from the State Board of Elections hearing that Michael Decker stole checks that were meant for his campaign," said Ken Bell. "This would not be the first time someone got in trouble and made up stories about someone else to try to get out of it.
"Speaker Black continues to vehemently deny that he gave or offered anything to Decker in exchange for his vote. As Speaker Black has testified, Decker informed the Speaker of his intention to vote for him. Many witnesses are able to testify that Decker decided all on his own to vote for Dr. Black as Speaker in 2003 because Decker's party insulted him and Decker despised his party's leaders.
"Speaker Black neither gave, promised nor offered Decker anything for his vote. After Decker told the Speaker he intended to vote for him, the Speaker offered to help Decker raise funds for what was sure to be a tough re-election campaign, just as he would have done for any member of his caucus. If Decker is telling the government anything other than this, he is not telling the truth.
"Speaker Black would like to discuss this matter further, but I have advised him to make no additional public comments. The Speaker looks forward to the truth coming out, and the truth will completely vindicate him."
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The charges must have been in an information rather than an indictment, since there was no report of an indictment (I guess it could have been sealed). This stronly indicates that negotiations with prosecutors have been going on behind the scenes for some time. I could not find the case listed in the website for the federal court for the eastern district (criminal cases are routinely listed there).
Posted on August 1, 2006 5:05 PM
Bryan:
You are correct. The judge spent a good long time explaining the difference between an indictment and criminal information to Dekcer this morning.
And yes, I think both the CI and timing of the sentencing point to some expected cooperation between the two.
Posted on August 1, 2006 5:10 PM