IF RAY BUCKLEY HAS NOTHING TO HIDE, THEN WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS HIDING HIM?
(AND WHO DID LYNCH TELL, AND WHAT AND WHEN DID HE TELL THEM?)
by Ed Mosca
In quitting the race for state chairman of the Democrat Party, Ray Buckley unequivocally denied allegations which, according to press reports (the allegations themselves have not been published), involve child pornography: “These politically motivated allegations are completely false. I have no doubt that the allegations will be proven baseless but I am angry beyond belief that the politics of personal destruction have come to New Hampshire.” The obvious question brought to mind by Buckley’s remonstration is this: Why, if the allegations are “completely false” and “baseless,” did Buckley nonetheless quit the state chairmanship race, which by all accounts he already had sewn up? The apparent answer is that Governor Lynch made it known that he wanted Buckley to step down, which in turn raises this question: Why did the Governor ax Buckley?
The answer is easy to surmise. If the allegations are “false” and “baseless” as Buckley claims, then there are no witnesses or physical evidence, which would have resulted in the pending criminal investigation being resolved in Buckley’s favor well in advance of the March 29th election for Democrat state chairman. In other words, porn-gate unlike phone-gate would have turned out to be a tempest in a tea pot. Presumably what happened is that when the Governor’s politicos asked Buckley the predictable question whether it was possible that he could be found guilty of any crimes and thereby embarrass the Governor if the Governor continued to support Buckley, Buckley did not answer in the negative. The question is whether this conversation with Buckley occurred at a time and in a manner that could have compromised the criminal investigation by tipping off Buckley and allowing him to destroy evidence.
One report suggested that current Democrat state chairman Kathy Sullivan refused to say whether investigators had seized computers from state Democrat headquarters. Nonetheless, she did say that “Raymond will be exonerated, and I believe he will be vindicated of these politically motivated charges.” Pay attention to the words chosen by Attorney Sullivan. She clearly knows the substance of the allegations against Buckley and the identity of the alleger. This brings us back to the Governor.
The Governor received the letter containing the allegations against Buckley on December 29th. It was referred to the Attorney General on January 2nd. The delay was attributed to the holiday weekend. But the Governor’s politicos also shared the information with as yet unidentified Democrat party power brokers at yet unidentified times, apparently in some detail. In addition to Ms. Sullivan, there is State Senator Peter Burling who fired off the following Burling-Broadside in response to the allegations against Buckley: “The charges made against Raymond are false, libelous, scurrilous, vicious and hogwash.” Unless Attorney Burling would reflexively use these adjectives to describe any charges against Buckley or unless the Attorney General is in the habit of sharing information regarding pending criminal investigations with the Senator, he was made aware of the charges by the Governor’s politicos. The same can be said about Ms. Sullivan. How many others were told?
Well, the Governor’s politicos apparently went into spin-control mode as soon as they were made aware the allegations against Buckley. No sooner had we learned that Buckley had stepped down, that we learned that Jim Craig, the former Democratic House leader, was stepping up to replace him, and that Craig already had secured the support of Lynch, Senate President Sylvia Larsen and House Speaker Terie Norelli. It is hard to believe that Larsen and Norelli would jump on Craig’s bandwagon without asking what in the world was going and receiving the answer. Presumably, other power brokers in the Democrat party were brought on board in the interim as well.
The question, then, is this: Did the Governor’s politicos possibly compromise a criminal investigation by disseminating information regarding the child pornography allegations and the referral to the Attorney General to Buckley or to people who may have passed the information on to Buckley? It certainly looks like that is what happened. Mr. Lynch needs to identify who was told, and what and when they were told.