Mercer County probe of Edwards e-mail is complete

No evidence found to support Hopewell Township Committeeman Jon Edwards’ allegation that Sam Plumeri had told Mr. Edwards in November 2001 that the county Democrats would funnel $10,000 from Princeton attorney Josh Markowitz to the township Democratic organization if Mr. Markowitz were hired as township attorney.

By John Tredrea
   Mercer County Prosecutor Daniel Giaquinto said Tuesday that an intensive investigation by his office unearthed no evidence to support Jon Edwards’ allegation that Sam Plumeri had told Mr. Edwards in November 2001 that the county organization would funnel $10,000 from Princeton attorney Josh Markowitz to the township Democratic organization if Mr. Markowitz were hired as township attorney.
   Mr. Edwards was then and still is a member of the Hopewell Township Committee. Mr. Plumeri was chairman of the county Democratic organization at the time.
   Mr. Markowitz would have replaced Republican John Bennett, who was township attorney. Hired in 1999, Mr. Bennett was replaced this year by Edwin Schmierer.
   The Edwards allegation was made in a controversial e-mail he wrote and sent to township Democratic officials in January of this year. In that e-mail, which became public knowledge in March through extensive press coverage, Mr. Edwards said he turned the Plumeri offer down.
   Mr. Giaquinto said during a press conference at the county courthouse Tuesday morning that his office’s investigation of the e-mail has "affirmatively cleared" Messrs. Plumeri and Markowitz "of the alleged bribe attempt."
   Said Mr. Giaquinto: "We have concluded our investigation into allegations that Samuel Plumeri and Joshua Markowitz attempted to bribe the Hopewell Township Democratic Committee to hire Mr. Markowitz to replace John Bennett as township attorney. We have found those allegations to be unsubstantial and without corroboration. They are unworthy of presentation to a grand jury. Our file on this case has been closed."
   Added Mr. Giaquinto: "This is not a case where there is simply not enough evidence to proceed. This is a case where the adamant denials of Mr. Plumeri and Mr. Markowitz are credible and these individuals are affirmatively cleared by this office."
   Mr. Giaquinto stressed that, based on the evidence, prosecutors would have a very poor chance of obtaining an indictment, let alone a conviction, of Mr. Plumeri or Mr. Markowitz if the findings of the investigation were put before a grand jury. "Indeed, it would be a dereliction of our duty to seek an indictment," Mr. Giaquinto declared.
   Mr. Giaquinto said his office undertook the investigation of the Edwards e-mail because the allegations it contained represented "potential violations of New Jersey’s bribery statue." Added the prosecutor: "The allegations in this matter were extremely serious because they dealt with the heart of the public trust and good government. They can also tarnish the reputation of the innocent."
   He added: "The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the (bribe) offer was not made. In any case, we’re totally convinced the offer is not provable … the denials from Mr. Markowitz and Mr. Plumeri are credible."
   At the press conference, the prosecutor released a detailed 10-page summary of the investigation. A copy of that document was given to Mr. Edwards Tuesday afternoon. After reading it, he reacted with surprise and disappointment, saying: "It is amazing to me that the prosecutor missed one of the most key points that I attempted to make, which is I never thought a bribe attempt had occurred. To me, this offer came under the heading of ‘pay for play’."
   That’s not how Mr. Giaquinto saw it, however. He said that if the offer from Mr. Plumeri were made as Mr. Edwards described it in his e-mail, it would have been a bribery attempt, which is a crime. "That’s why we investigated it," the prosecutor said.
   The term "pay for play" refers to the practice of making political contributions in exchange for being awarded professional service contracts by government agencies. With the enthusiastic support of Mr. Edwards, the Hopewell Township Committee voted unanimously last year to adopt an ordinance making pay for play illegal in the township.
   After the e-mail became public knowledge, Mr. Edwards said his reason for e-mailing the anecdote about refusing the $10,000 offer from Mr. Plumeri was because that refusal was, in Mr. Edwards’ view, an example of refusing to give in to political pressure. He wanted the Township Committee to stand up to such pressure in the same way by rehiring Mr. Bennett, a Republican. Mr. Edwards said he felt that Mr. Bennett’s political party was irrelevant and that the attorney should be kept on board because he was doing excellent work for the township.
   The Township Committee was all-Democratic for several years. That ended this January, when Republican Arlene Kemp began a three-year term. The other four members of the committee are Democrats.
   "There is no independent evidence to corroborate Jon Edwards’ allegations," the prosecutor’s report said, adding that Mr. Edwards, who was questioned by prosecutors, "wavered regarding facts crucial to the investigation."
   For example, the report says that Mr. Edwards told prosecutors that "in late November/early December 2001, he received telephone calls from numerous Democratic Party members who tried to convince him to replace John Bennett with a Democratic township attorney. According to Edwards, in the middle of 2001, he called Plumeri to let him know Bennett was going to be retained as township attorney. Edwards was tired of being pressured and wanted Plumeri to ‘call off the dogs.’ According to Edwards, it was during their conversation that Plumeri told him that if they hired Markowitz, Markowitz would give $10,000 to the Mercer County Democratic party and the money would be funneled down to Hopewell Township. Edwards readily admitted that he could not swear to the words used by Plumeri to convey the alleged offer of money if Markowitz were hired. Nor could Edwards swear to the words he used during the conversation. Edwards was positive, however, that he had called Plumeri at Plumeri’s home from his residence in Hopewell (Township). He specifically remembered looking up Plumeri’s home number in the phone book and placing the call while standing in his kitchen. Edwards indicated that he kept his telephone bill for 2001 and would turn it over to the prosecutor’s office."
   That bill, the report said, "did not reflect that any calls were placed to Plumeri’s home telephone number. A call from Hopewell (Township) to Hamilton (where Plumeri resides) would have been a toll call and would have been reflected on Edwards’ phone bill had the call been made. At the time the phone bill was provided, our office was advised that Edwards was having second thoughts as to whether he called Plumeri or Plumeri called him. In this regard, it also should be noted that Plumeri’s home telephone number is unlisted."
   Mr. Edwards said Tuesday that, when he was responding to questions from the prosecutors, he was attempting to recall incidents that took place a year and a half earlier.
   "I clearly remember being in the kitchen, on the phone with Mr. Plumeri," Mr. Edwards said Tuesday. "It’s possible he called me rather than me calling him," he admitted.
   During the investigation, Mr. Plumeri told prosecutors that it was he who called Mr. Edwards. The report states: "Plumeri stated that Edwards had never called him at home or anywhere. It was Plumeri who placed the call. Plumeri categorically and emphatically denied saying anything to Edwards during their phone conversation that Edwards could have construed as a $10,000 bribe offer in the form of a donation from Markowitz. Plumeri related that Markowitz, while a loyal Democrat, was never a major financial contributor to the county Democratic party and had never donated that kind of money. Records obtained from the state Board of Elections confirm this."
   The report says Mr. Markowitz adamantly denied what was alleged in the Edwards e-mail. Moreover, Mr. Markowitz told prosecutors "he had no contact with Plumeri whatsoever regarding the job" of Hopewell Township attorney.
   The prosecutor’s report also states that on May 1, "a series of e-mails between Hopewell Township Committee members, dated Dec. 21, 2001, through Jan. 29, 2002, was obtained by the prosecutor’s office from a source other than Edwards. The first e-mail is dated Dec. 21, 2001 and is authored by Edwards. The main topic of discussion in the series of e-mails is the possible replacement of John Bennett as township attorney for the year 2002. The reasons expressed for replacing Bennett were the tardiness of some of his legal work and his political support of Mercer County Executive Robert Prunetti. These newly discovered e-mails were written shortly after Edwards alleges that Plumeri tried to bribe him to hire Markowitz to replace Bennett. However, nowhere in any of these e-mails does Edwards refer to the alleged bribe. Moreover, neither Plumeri nor Markowitz is even mentioned in any of these e-mails."
   On Tuesday, both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Giaquinto expressed frustration at the difficulties involved in trying to delve into the details of what happened, or may have happened, 18 months ago. Mr. Edwards readily admitted that it was difficult for him to remember details, but he held fast to his positions that the offer of $10,000 from Mr. Plumeri on behalf of Mr. Markowitz had been made and that he, Mr. Edwards, still did not regard that offer as a bribe attempt.
   Mr. Giaquinto said: "Serious accusations of corruption such as these, made more than a year after the alleged occurrence, present difficulties in timely rooting out criminal conduct or clearing the innocent. Still, the public should take heart that there is more than enough information in this case to render our conclusion."
   A story in The (Trenton) Times on Wednesday quoted John Furlong, an attorney who said he was representing Mr. Markowitz, as saying Mr. Edwards would be sued for libel unless he signed a statement retracting the e-mail allegations. Mr. Furlong was quoted as saying he would give Mr. Edwards until shortly before the close of court business today (Thursday) to sign the letter. If the letter is not signed by then, Mr. Furlong reportedly said, he would file the libel lawsuit against Mr. Edwards before the court closes today.
   Reached Wednesday afternoon and asked if he planned to sign such a statement, Mr. Edwards said: "I have no comment at this time."
   Calls from the HVN to the offices of Messrs. Furlong and Markowitz have not been not returned.