Monday, July 09, 2007

Did Bradley threaten Julian's job?

The following is a letter that Mr. Shreibman wrote to the Executive Committee regarding Mr. Bradley, I have obtained this letter from an anonymous source. Parts of this letter were reported on in the Freeman a week or so ago. I have been asked by many to see the letter in it's entirety so here it is. With Julian out of the race it really makes me question his future if Bradley is elected D.A. Decide for yourself...

Note: Mr. Bradley denies that this happened.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my position to the Executive Committee. The question before the Committee is whether a non-Democrat should be granted a special exemption to wage a primary campaign against two qualified, life-long Democrats. It seems to me that to state the question is to answer it. Setting aside the specifics of this race, it is hard to imagine any situation in which it would be a good idea to create or expand a primary by granting a Wilson-Pakula waiver.

The Democratic Party is indeed the party of inclusion; at a time when the Party is doing well in Ulster County it is heartening - and not surprising - to find more and more citizens who want to join the winning team. Far from being excluded, Mr. Bradley has been welcomed to the Party. But it is one thing to join, and become involved in, a political party and another to presume to immediately supplant life-long Democrats as a candidate for one of the highest elected offices in the County. As Committee members have heard me say before, I returned to Ulster County to serve the community, not to run for office. In contrast, Mr. Bradley turned down a senior ADA position in the DA's Office last year, before later deciding to run for the top job.

I have been a registered Democrat since I was 18 years old. If I could have registered to vote at the age of 8, I would have registered as a Democrat. Mr. Bradley made a choice, repeatedly over many years, to not enroll as a Democrat while the Party was struggling to grow here. Ironically, Mr. Bradley is now seeking to run in a Democratic primary despite never having voted in one.

I have heard Mr. Bradley state that a principal reason he is NOP related to his work for the Manhattan DA's Office. I am unsure how this explains the preceding 11 or so years of his voting life before joining that Office. In any event, Mr. Bradley's explanation doesn't make much sense. During my own career as a public servant, I have worked in very sensitive, non-political positions in which any political activity was highly regulated and restricted. I have never encountered, nor heard of, any legal restrictions on party affiliation. Indeed, it would be illegal for a government employer to ask about, or restrict, party affiliation.

Finally, I believe it is appropriate for the Committee to consider what type of campaign would occur if Mr. Bradley is given special permission to primary. Although Mr. Sennett and I have differences in experience and ideas for the DA's Office, we have both adhered to a positive campaign focusing on our strengths. Indeed, during the pre-convention campaign, neither Mr. Sennett nor I made an issue of the fact that Mr. Bradley is not a Democrat. In contrast, however, since the convention, Mr. Bradley has run a fundamentally negative campaign, first by encouraging the false rumor that Mr. Sennett and I engaged in a political deal at the convention. In fact, while both men sought my support, only Mr. Bradley offered me a "deal" to steer votes toward him, and only Mr. Bradley implicitly threatened my position at the DA's Office when he apparently saw some of my supporters speaking to others about voting for Mr. Sennett. More significantly, over the past few weeks, Mr. Bradley, both directly and through proxies, has baselessly accused Mr. Sennett and me of unethical conduct in the performance of our duties as Assistant Public Defender and Assistant District Attorney, respectively. This type of campaigning does not serve anyone's interests, much less the Party's, and we should not encourage 12 more weeks of it.

I trust that the Committee members -- whether they agree with me or not -- will appreciate a plain statement of my views on this topic. I would be pleased to provide any other information or answer any other questions that Committee members might have.


Anonymous said...

Bradley lacks integrity.

What would Morganthau say about his former employee's candidacy for a job that requires fairness, balance and maturity?

He is being molded by his puppeteers and he is not a strong candidate.

Anonymous said...

The fact is, Morganthau couldn't care less. Bradley was stuck in a dead end job and a dead end division with no prospects for advancement. He was passed over numerous times for promotions. After 9 years in that office he was barely higher up than he was when he started, and was never given sole responsibility for anything important. All the cases he touts as "his' were actually him acting as part of a team, and not necessarily as the team leader. Not a very impressive performance. He should probably stop invoking Mr. Morganthau's name over and over again as his greatest qualification for this job.

Anonymous said...

Amen to that!

Anonymous said...

You have to ask yourself why was he repeatedly passed over for promotions with the "best District Attorney in the Country?"