Was Phil Hamilton case politically motivated?
By Brian Kirwin | Saturday, May 14th, 2011 | PoliticsYeah, I know, he took a $40,000 a year job from a center funded by his budget amendment.
But did Democrats target Del. Phil Hamilton because they thought he broke the law, or were they only interested in his political destruction?
Makes me wonder what these Democrats were thinking. As reported in the Daily Press, peninsula Democrats seem much less interested in Hamilton being punished in the legal system than you’d think.
state Sen. John Miller, D-Newport News, said in Thursday’s paper that Hamilton has “already paid a very significant price.”
And Robin Abbott, the Democrat who ousted Hamilton in the last election, thinks his crimes aren’t that jail-worthy in light of Hamilton’s many “sacrifices for the people” over the past 21 years
The point columnist Tamara Dietrich was making is that these Democrats were howling for Hamilton’s hide while he was in office. But once they captured his Delegate seat, they suddenly reverted to their usual “soft on crime” selves.
As if losing political office is a worse punishment than prison?????
Think about that for a moment. How perverse and values-twisted must you be to think that ending a political career is a sentencing guideline? That’s an odd definition of “time already served.”
If Democrats were as honestly outraged by Hamilton’s action, they would support justice. Instead, it makes it look like all they wanted was a political victory.
Of course, the Party that freed Willie Horton can’t be expected to feel any differently about Phil Hamilton.
But it’s sad that Democrats feel no shame in ruining a man’s political career while driving him into bankruptcy for no greater goal than winning an election.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
9 Responses to "Was Phil Hamilton case politically motivated?"
Norment is commenting on the issue as well. Norment must be concerned about getting investigated, I’m not sure he’s discussed his role with WM publicly. Something tells me someone’s breathing down his neck. His local paper wrote an article title “Hamilton parallels bother Norment”… interesting read… http://www.vagazette.com/articles/2011/05/15/news//doc4dcdab57be662249543413.txt
Chris:
Great point.
Since reading the article in the Williamsburg Gazette, I have been doing my own research. While the job with William & Mary shows a clear conflict of interest, unfortunately that is only breaking the surface of his unethical conduct.
Sen. Norment is a commissioner of accounts in Williamsburg. Admittedly, I am unfamiliar with this position. But, what I do know is this: it is a $120,000 a year job. Plus, he was appointed by a circuit court judge. And, oh by the way, Sen. Norment, in his role as a legislator, appoints those very judges. Cleary, quid pro quo.
I hope our legislators in Richmond look into this matter in detail as soon as possible!
Mel: That’s really interesting, VPAP lists one of his sources of income from the “Commissioner of Accounts” and he put the judge that appointed him to that position on the bench…http://hamptonroads.com/2010/01/new-bill-week-draws-line-commissioner-accounts-job. Not only that but he lists “Kaufman & Canoles” as another source of income, which is fascinating because he said recently he was forbidden from working for that firm per an AG opinion.
We all need to call our fellow Republican senators and request an ethics panel on this issue. This is not government at its finest… this is an example of LIBERTY!
Chris,
Let’s get the facts straight. He had to give up his partnership interest in Kaufman & Canoles not stop workign for them. The commissioner of accounts job, while it’s been controversial in the past when legislators have held it– arguably causing the losses of two Hampton Roads Dems in the late 1990s — has been held by other legislators. Under the current rules, a legislator can hold that postiion. Others do. The job with William & Mary is clearly NOT a conflict of interest, because Norment asked for an AG’s opinion on that before he took the job. Other legislators have taught at colleges in the state, Creigh Deeds just took a job as adjunct law faculty at Washington & Lee. If you think those things are improper, then you need to advocate for changing the rules. But Norment is operating within the rules that exist now.
Yes, rules only apply to Republicans. Democrats always operate fairly, just ask them. Norment was granted permission by the AG? Funny how that didn’t work for our CIA Agents.
What type of Totalitarian government are we living in to where we need to ask permission?
Actually I dont remember Abbott making a campaign issue of Hamilton’s conduct, nor do I remember Miller weighing in on it significantly. I dont believe for a minute this was political in a partisan way-although it could have been in the sense of getting an overzealous prosecutor who was determined to make a name for himself.
SE VA- Abbott did make a poltiical issue of Hamilton’s problems, by makeing one of her campaign proposals a package of ethics reform laws — a weakened version of which actually passed — that would have addressed situations like Hamilton’s.
Hamilton also lost because his district was 60% Obama district. He might have lost years before if Dems had come up with a solid candidate.
When justice was brought up, Eric Holder was the first thing that came to mind? Also, I remember all those times to where the angry white guy about health care (Times Square Bomber) and the angry Tea Party with Giffords came to mind also.
Oh, and the CIA agents who asked the same question but are now being held trial for asks that they’d gotten permission.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.