Frank Carson Has Some Explaining to Do
One of the biggest problems with political candidates – for ANY office is that they so seldom seem to think about what it takes to prepare themselves to be whatever office they have decided to seek. The main thought seems to be to get whatever office they can, and then maybe figure it out later, or least springboard to something else before the people figure out that they have no business being there in the first place. I would argue that explains the President and more than few in Congress.
Worse though, are those who would use a campaign to distract or to intentionally lie to gain some advantage, an advantage that may not be as obvious as the campaign seems up front.
Back in February, we had Frank Carson on the show to talk about his campaign for Stanislaus County District Attorney. Frankly (ba-dump-pish), I had felt from the news reports that he was likely to be something of a loose cannon. He wasn’t, but he was a pretty typical defense attorney. The problem is that the show is not a court of law. When it comes to a trial, a defense attorney has pretty much no limits of fighting for his client. If he can mislead, misdirect, misinform a jury and they cannot cut through it, so be it. That’s how the system works. It’s what I would want were I ever in need of Defense Attorney.
But when seeking a public office, is that acceptable?
Frank Carson did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to me and to you when he was on the show.
He may have assumed that nobody would notice or care. Consider this, Mr. Carson claimed that the number of Investigators in the DA office has “tripled.” In fact, the number of investigators was cut from 24 to roughly 11. That’s not only not “tripling,” it not multiplication at all. Why would a man who wants the public trust tell an obvious and trivial lie? And if he would tell such a trivial lie, how hard is it to extrapolate a bigger lie to the public?
He implied that there was great expense involved in the 25 wiretaps in 2012, but what evidence did he produce to substantiate that claim? In fact, none of the 2012 wiretaps had any impact at all on the DA’s budget. A simple records request would have shown that.
Like you, I read the papers and while I am not naive enough to believe that all of the story is there, I can connect a dot or two from here to there. It’s pretty clear from the facts that somehow or another Mr. Carson is mixed up in this at least as a witness, and – as it stands right now – possibly even as a co-conspirator. He announced his run for District Attorney AFTER the initial search of his Turlock office in 2012. AFTER the case had begun. Why?
What if this campaign for District Attorney isn’t about becoming District Attorney at all, since he was so clearly unprepared for the job and chose to knowingly lie about a trivial beef with the District Attorney office in a way that would people to an average voter? What if his District Attorney run is about putting himself in the position of being politically persecuted – or having the appearance of it – polluting a case in which he my have deeper involvement than just “it’s all political,” and providing himself with legal cover for defense more than serving the people as a District Attorney?
If such questions and others exist, doesn’t a candidate for District Attorney owe the voters actual answers to those questions as exactly what his involvement is in the case? Instead of attack platitudes and complaints, wouldn’t a man who wants to be YOUR District Attorney see the need to be upfront and honest, even if it might reflect poorly upon himself? Isn’t there an ethical and/or moral obligation to stop being a defense attorney and start being an honest candidate?
If Frank Carson really wants to be District Attorney of Stanislaus County, he needs to be more forthcoming and honest. If this is all just a distraction, he needs to man up and take accountability for any actions for which he has responsibility.