Unfolding Indeed...

Last January I wrote that the biggest story of 2010 was about to unfold. That's the post in which  I pointed out that the investigation of Joe Arpaio was also focusing on Andrew Thomas.

Friday's Republic had this page 1 confirmation.

For months, federal investigators have focused their investigation on conflicts among county officials on Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Chief Deputy David Hendershott. The Arizona Republic has learned FBI agents are now also questioning potential witnesses about County Attorney Andrew Thomas' role in prosecutions and lawsuits against elected and appointed county officials.

I made clear in the original post that we don't know for sure what's going to happen--after all, Grand Jury proceedings are secret.  And I was certainly wrong about the timing. 

However, I doubt that I was wrong about the final result...federal investigations lead to federal indictments. 

If you are wondering if there is any substance to the allegations, consider what happened when Thomas himself hand picked a Republican prosecutor from Yavapai County to look into some of his cases.

A prosecutor testified in court Tuesday that Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio abused their powers in carrying out criminal investigations of county officials.

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk also alleged that the sheriff wanted to use grand jury subpoenas to pry into the lives of county officials in hopes of charging them with crimes.

So what happens next? 

Well, first--like always--I will get flamed in my own comments section and on Sonoran Alliance.  Then the FBI will dutifully take down all the Commenters' IP Addresses and add them to whatever file they have on the minions at the County.

Then the people who have been investigated, indicted and ultimately exonerated will realize that malicious prosecution is a tort and the county has deep pockets...

And of course someone will point out that it's an ethical violation for a prosecutor to act when he knows there's not probable cause.  I'm sure that one of the freshly exonerated targets will be mentioning Rule 3.8 to the Bar. 

And what's next?  I don't know...Prison? 

(By the way, I don't think that things are looking very good for the aforementioned minions either.)

Comments

[Jenny]

I. Can't. Wait!!

[Whiskey Jack]

Greg, you bash the Republic continually but now it's the gold standard of journalism??!! The Republic's article, by notoriously liberal reporter Yvonne Wingett, quoted anonymous "sources" (let's see, maybe Don Stapley, maybe David Smith?) who would not even reveal what they were asked.

And this "investigation" is being conducted by the Obama administration. Ya think maybe they have an axe to grind with the Sheriff and County Attorney?!!!

I remain curious as to your opinion on the underlying charges that Stapley put the arm on lobbyists for money for a "campaign" that he then used to buy a home furniture set, Hawaii vacation, and hair implants, and that Mary Rose voted to appropriate loads of money to an outfit that was funding her business enterprises...

[Bill]

Whiskey, I don't have to be a defender of either Stapley or Wilcox to say that if the "underlying charges" are so powerful, another county attorney will be just as happy to pursue them as Thomas is. So why has it taken so long for Thomas to reach that same conclusion, and only after many court rebuffs? How many hundreds of thousands of tax dollars has been squandered by his ineffective floundering and posturing in the meantime?

[Whiskey Jack]

Actually the Gila County Attorney has taken these cases. http://www.abc15.com/content/news/investigators/story/Gila-County-Attorney-taking-over-Wilcox-Stapley/hkSXJedvHEi2aFS4kGBC_w.cspx

My point is that we've heard an awful lot about Arpaio and Thomas but not much on the actual charges against Stapley and Wilcox, which at least on the surface are troubling. And the county management is responsible for the costs too because they have blocked these prosecutions

[Winnie]

Remember that Stapley's defense is that the law he is accused of violating isn't really a law at all. Go figure. Wonder how hard it is to argue probable cause, and then convince a grand jury to indict, when that's Stapley's defense.

Sorry Greg, but you're beginning to sound a lot like Tawana Brawley.

[mahtso]

As to probable cause: As I recall, in her letter to the Az Republic, Ms. Polk acknowledged that she had the cases against Mr. Stapley and Ms. Wilcox for 6 months. To me that means either there was probable cause or Ms. Polk violated the rules of ethics.

I'd like to see a journalist investigate the charges against the two supervisors. And, I also see the irony as pointed out by Whiskey Jack.

[nick]

Winnie,

You can argue ethics for CHARLIE RANGLE!