Ex-FDA chief faces sentencing Tuesday

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

A judge wants attorneys to explain why former FDA chief Lester Crawford shouldn't receive stiffer punishment than a $50,000 fine and probation for lying about stocks he owned in companies regulated by his agency.

Crawford was to be sentenced Tuesday. His defense attorney and federal prosecutors worked out a deal that would spare jail time for the former head of the Food and Drug Administration.

However, Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson wants to know why more stringent federal sentencing guidelines were not applied.

"Dr. Crawford has agreed to take responsibility for his actions," his lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, wrote in court filings earlier this month. She noted that prosecutors acknowledged there was no evidence that Crawford had schemed to defraud or misuse his office for personal gain.

"The stigma of his conviction will follow him the rest of his life," Gelder wrote.

Crawford pleaded guilty last October to charges of having a conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks that he and his wife owned. Beginning in 2002, Crawford filed seven incorrect financial reports with a government ethics office and Congress.

Crawford did, however, pay taxes on the dividends and the options he exercised, according to prosecutors.

The two charges — conflict of interest and false reporting — are misdemeanors and each carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

In filings, prosecutors say the proposed $50,000 fine was appropriate. They noted it would exceed the roughly $39,000 that Crawford and his wife, Cathy, made from exercising options and in dividends from illegally held stocks in food, beverage and medical companies, which included Embrex Inc. and Pepsico Inc.

Crawford also was cooperative once prosecutors began their criminal investigation in late 2005, said assistant U.S. Attorney Howard Sklamberg.

Crawford, a veterinarian and food-safety expert, abruptly resigned from the FDA in September 2005 but gave no reason for leaving. He had held the job for two months, following his confirmation by the Senate.

___

On the Net:

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/

[Mirorgate 0]

Why are you so surprised about such judgments?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why are you so surprised about such judgments?

Just another Bush appointee mired in controversy.

[GaryC 7]

Why are you so surprised about such judgments?

Just another Bush appointee mired in controversy.

Right, another Bush scandal. He just "maybe" made a few extra bux and is standing up and admitting guilt. Lest we forget that when the Almighty God Clinton did something scandalizing it really was a danger to the country. There are to many to list but this one is at the top of the hit parade:

China spy scandal threatens Clinton as four stay silent

By Hugo Gurdon in Washington

THE Chinese spying-and-funding scandal enveloping President Clinton deepened yesterday after two key witnesses refused to give evidence and two others fled the country.

John Huang, a Clinton appointee with possible connections to Chinese military intelligence, refused to provide documents requested by congressional investigators. But he indicated that he might relent if granted immunity from prosecution.

Webster Hubbell, a former partner of Hillary Clinton at the Rose law firm, who has just been released from prison for fraud in the Whitewater scandal, refused to hand over papers detailing $350,000 (£214,000) of suspected "hush money" he received after leaving the government.

Charles Yah Lin Trie, an Arkansas restaurateur who took a Chinese arms dealer to the White House, and Pauline Kanchanalak raised nearly $1 million of suspect contributions for Mr Clinton and the Democrats. They are believed to be in Asia, having left instructions with their lawyer to ignore subpoenas for documents.

These evasions are certain to deepen suspicion that Mr Clinton's benefactors have something to hide. The fear is that Asian, specifically Chinese, money was funnelled into Mr Clinton's re-election campaign, with at least tacit understanding that this would improve the chances of a pro-China US foreign policy.

Mr Huang is a former executive of the Lippo Group, a Chinese-Indonesian conglomerate which is a partner of China Resources, a company owned by the People's Liberation Army and is seen as a front for Chinese military intelligence.

During his first term of office, Mr Clinton appointed Mr Huang to the Commerce Department, where he acquired high-level security clearance, received 37 intelligence briefings and yet maintained close contact with Lippo. He phoned them 70 times, sometimes on the same day, as he obtained classified documents.

http://nick.assumption.edu/WebVAX/ETnew/wclin22Feb97.html

Why do you dismiss this sort of thing while joyfully reporting a minor problem with a Bush appointee? A little two-faced are we???

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why are you so surprised about such judgments?

Just another Bush appointee mired in controversy.

Why do you dismiss this sort of thing while joyfully reporting a minor problem with a Bush appointee? A little two-faced are we???

First, I've never pretended that Clinton was a perfect person or a even a perfect President and I was actually quite critical over some of his policies as well as some of his personal affairs ...when he was President...which by the way ended SEVEN years ago.

Secondly, what I do remember of the Clinton Presidency is that Republicans would sound off their digust in Clinton's character, pointing out any issue as proof that Clinton was in their minds the antichrist. That's where the hypocracy lies, Gary. Did you ever have a Clinton supporter try to tell you that you're being un-American to question the President (when Clinton was in office)? Did you ever hear a Democrat say we must stand behind our President? Did you ever hear anyone dismiss your criticism of Clinton as nothing but bashing the President?

[GaryC 7]

Why are you so surprised about such judgments?

Just another Bush appointee mired in controversy.

Why do you dismiss this sort of thing while joyfully reporting a minor problem with a Bush appointee? A little two-faced are we???

First, I've never pretended that Clinton was a perfect person or a even a perfect President and I was actually quite critical over some of his policies as well as some of his personal affairs ...when he was President...which by the way ended SEVEN years ago.

Secondly, what I do remember of the Clinton Presidency is that Republicans would sound off their digust in Clinton's character, pointing out any issue as proof that Clinton was in their minds the antichrist. That's where the hypocracy lies, Gary. Did you ever have a Clinton supporter try to tell you that you're being un-American to question the President (when Clinton was in office)? Did you ever hear a Democrat say we must stand behind our President? Did you ever hear anyone dismiss your criticism of Clinton as nothing but bashing the President?

You must have a very short memory. Yes I have heard multitudes of dems say we must stand by the president. Yes I have heard multitudes of people dismiss criticism of Clinton as just bashing the president. Do you remember the "vast right wing conspiracy"? Do you remember that it was "only a BJ"? Oh yes Steve, the dems have done much more bashing than we ever did. It's your M.O. When you can't counter with substance you bury in sh!t. It's the dems hypocrisies that really sticks out.

[peejay 327]

Really? As if Democratic appointees are any more ethical than Republicans? I'm old enough to remember quite a few scandals in Jimmy Carter's and LBJ's administrations. Not to mention some in Slick Willy's too.

What does that prove? Nada! I've voted for both parties over the years and know that both have a capacity for sleaze.

It just reinforces my opinion that the Beltway and politics in general is a sleazy business.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, I'm telling you that during Clinton's 2 terms, I never once heard the term 'un-American' or 'emboldening the enemy' used to silence dissent, but maybe you're right...my memory must be fading.

What I DID hear were many Democrats who openly criticized Clinton...something that is oddly missing among the Republicans with regard to Bush.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky