MSNBC host Al Sharpton has long been controversial from his involvement in the Tawana Brawley scandal to questions raised about his pressing companies to give “love offerings” and associations to his legal problems. Nevertheless, his position at MSNBC is viewed as secure while President Obama continues to honor him at official White House meetings and public events, including an event three days ago. This teflon reputation with liberals appears to be holding even after news reports surfaced that Sharpton was an FBI snitch and an associate accused him of seeking to cash in on the drug trade before he became a national figure. Sharpton has been somewhat guarded in answering detailed questions about the stories about his wearing a wire in meetings with the mob, but recently confirmed that he “cooperated” with the FBI. He proved testy with 60 Minutes in refusing to acknowledge that he was an informant. According to reports, the FBI designated Sharpton as “Confidential Informant No. 7” and used him with a bugged briefcase to incriminate mob figures in discussions of criminal enterprises. Sharpton insisted “I’m not a rat, I’m a cat.” He certainly has nine lives given the range of his past scandals. The mayor of New York and other Democratic leaders lined up to praise Sharpton in the aftermath of the story.
The site Smoking Gun broke the story and says that Sharpton denied key facts of their story, including that he was “flipped” after being caught in criminal conduct. He was allegedly used as an informant against the notorious Genovese crime family.
Others who knew Sharpton have come forward with conflicting accounts. One is Robert Curington, 72, who said that he worked for Al Sharpton’s nonprofit organization in the 1980s and that Sharpton wanted to get some of the drug money flowing through black neighborhoods. He said that Sharpton walked into an FBI trap and was flipped. His account includes a detailed account of a meeting with a South American drug lord and at least two follow up meetings. One such meeting involved an effort to incriminate boxing figure Don King in 1983, but King was suspicious. Curington said that Sharpton was less cautious and fell for the sting – leading to his work as an informant. Sharpton has not threatened defamation over the comments which clearly involve a per se category of slander (criminal activity) if untrue. Notably, Curington does not appear to have been present at some of the meetings that he describes in the accounts.
Another former associate, photographer Ahmed Obafemi, has come forward to recall Sharpton and his now infamous bugged briefcase. Obafemi recalls suspicions that Sharpton was trying to set up Joanne Chesimard, who was a fugitive after killing of New Jersey state trooper Werner Foerster. Obafemi gives details like an offer to pay her $50,000 that he had from supporters if he was given her whereabouts. Sharpton denies any memory of the meetings. That is quite a discrepancy. One would think that Sharpton would be threatening a defamation lawsuit after being accused in such an effort. It would raise an interesting question of whether setting up a fugitive would be defamatory as a black community organizer. Sharpton has long denied allegations that he was trying to set up Obafemi but the recent disclosures have rekindled those allegations. Ironically, the more obvious defamation action would be based on the suggestion that Sharpton was trying to get money to a fugitive cop killer. Either way, these meetings are not something one would likely forget since there were more than one, a large amount of money involved, and the subject was one of the most sought fugitive of the day. It would also just happen to be a criminal act. Sharpton is accused by this man of an act that would make him an accesory after the fact and violate a host of other provisions.
What is fascinating is the continued immunity enjoyed by Sharpton after the ruling against him in the Brawley scandal, criminal investigations, and repeated questions raised over ethics. Even disclosure that he was an informant does not appear to have materially affected his political standing or his position with MSNBC. The latter is particularly interesting given the removal of Keith Olbermann for a couple of small political contributions. Sharpton regularly appears at political events and has this other baggage to boot. Yet, he has been able to largely avoid any detailed discussions while continuing as a host.
Obviously, the impetus for Sharpton becoming an informant is known only to him and the FBI. Usually, the use of a C.I. or snitch is based on the FBI holding something over the individual. That is viewed as making them more cooperative and reliable. It is extremely rare to see a voluntary C.I., particularly by someone who at the time was known as a community organizer at odds with law enforcement. Indeed, in my work as a criminal defense counsel, I have never seen a C.I. in an operation like this that was not based on a prior threat or need for a deal. That is not to say that it could not be a purely voluntary effort as Sharpton has suggested. However, if these allegations are true, Sharpton has compounded the scandal with a false account.
There are a couple of ways to resolve these conflicting accounts. One obvious way would be for MSNBC to get Sharpton to ask the FBI for the release of the full record and to waive any confidentiality. After all, Sharpton used MSNBC to insist that what he did was purely to help his community. He says that he was threatened by people in the mob and that he did the “right thing” by going to the FBI. If so, he is being unfairly maligned and MSNBC should ask for a public letter to the FBI seeking the full files. After all, this investigative record is decades old and the law enforcement value has long passed in keeping it locked away (when the informant himself is asking for disclosure). That would allow total transparency. Since he is claiming to have done this as a purely voluntary act to protect his neighborhood, such disclosure will only support him and counter his critics. Indeed, he would have a basis for a defamation lawsuit. As a political and media figure, such transparency would seem inherent to his position. Indeed, as a media figure, the concern is not just whether Sharpton committed criminal act or lied but whether the FBI had something on Sharpton that would impact his independence as a host. If the accounts are correct, there is material in FBI files that would prove highly embarrassing to Sharpton, if not ruinous.
That effort of transparency was sought a decade or so ago in another allegation that Sharpton offered to be a snitch on another black leader. The New York Times reported that evidence had surfaced that Sharpton was an informant which Sharpton declared was “ludicrous.” Andrew J. Maloney, the former United States attorney in Brooklyn, said that Sharpton was facing state charges of tax evasion and came to offer to provide certain information against an individual. Sharpton again said that he was merely trying to serve his community to help curb drug trafficking. However, unnamed prosecutors said that he was trying to sell out an unidentified black leader. Sharpton was pressured to release Maloney of any further obligation to withhold the details. He agreed but the New York Times said “[t]hen he sent a note voiding his authorization.”
It seems to me that the burden is on MSNBC and NBC establish the full record in such a case. As for Sharpton, he either has promising defamation actions . . . or a lot of explaining to do.
What do you think?
If Al needs legal representation, then this is the guy.
Mob attorney Bruce Cutler punches man at swanky Manhattan steakhouse:
The 65-year-old who built his reputation on keeping Gambino boss John Gotti out of prison reportedly socked a 38-year-old man at Porter House restaurant in Columbus Circle.
How is it that cooperating with law enforcement against drug dealers and mobsters is seen as a bad thing?
I’ve never heard of an informant or “CW”/cooperating witness, especially in the federal system who took on the role out of some moral sense of duty. They are, in my experience, in this position to avoid being indicted themselves. Are there so few leaders in the African American community that Al doesn’t fear getting jettisoned from his bully-pulpit? I just can’t believe it. I think the networks are just lazy and feckless and know he will draw rating not in spite of but because of his negative influence on most issues.
Off The Topic, but get a load of this report from CNN about an hour ago concerning Governor Chris “The Crocodile” Christie crying when he heard about the lane closures.
“He got emotional, and with tears in his eyes, asked if anyone else had anything else to do with the lane realignment, because he could not get sandbagged again,” according to the memo.”
PR spin, New Jersey style?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/14/first-on-cnn-christies-interview-with-investigators/?hpt=hp_t2
Mike,
We are only hearing part of the story. Sharpton was almost certaintly the target of FBI programs like CoinTelPro – which probably never ended in the 1970’s and was revived after 9/11.
In programs like CoinTelPro or Operation Chaos, federal agents commit felonies and actually framed African-American civil rights leaders based on Freedom of Speech exercises or other constitutionally protected exercises. African-Americans were simply asking for their constitutional rights to be enforced by the government. In this equation, the bigger crimes are by the FBI and other government agencies – not the group demanding voting rights.
For example: Felonies committed by some (not all) FBI agents actually create the circumstances to trip up people like Sharpton – if federal agents never committed the felonies in the first place they would never be able to extort civil rights leaders.
By selectively releasing files that only benefit the bureaucracy, federal agencies can paint their own version of history, loyalty and morality.
In constitutional law, chronology is supposed to matter. The role of law enforcement is to investigate “probable cause” preceded by an actual crime, their role is never to poke American citizens with a stick to antagonize them or frame them to silence Freedom of Speech.
Question? How did Reverend Al Sharpton multitask through all this stuff,
study scripture, be an FBI snitch, get out of an IRS CID investigation, and
be the focal point, working NYC protesters into a tizzy, causing riots?
Anyone remember the riots in Teaneck, NJ? Guess where Al was?
I was going home from FDU engineering campus, night school, that day.
I do not know what the truth is on any of this, I am from the UK, and I am always stunned at the total character demolition that happens to ANYBODY in this country who dares to put their nose above the horizon and actually have an opinion on anything – right or left, how can anyone stand up for principle knowing that they will be wiped off the face of the earth by the other side, thoroughly confusing everybody in the process – and is EVERYONE a total liar these days, doesn’t anyone prefer reality and truth ??
I’m just tired of trying to make out what to believe from all this pile of s%%% that we have to deal with.
I want true democracy for all people on the earth, a balance of power among all individual people (a corporation is NOT a person Mr. Supreme Court !) and fairness and prosperity equally for all of us – who is it that wants anything else – please speak up – you are actually outnumbered on this earth by the most of us who believe in fairness and justice.
S-o-o-o-o tired of it all !!!!
Veronica – a corporation is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. 🙂 That is the law of the land. You and I have no say in the matter, regardless of how loud we protest.
The Supreme Court, as you will remember from your civics class, is one of the three branches of government, based on a checks-and-balances system.
Mr. Sharpton has always been his own worst enemy. He is an opportunist, which is why I believe, he took the opportunity to snitch. Admittedly I detest him, so I am likely to believe the worst about him, but he does do it to himself.
Where would we both without Annie introducing a completely unrelated topic into a thread that points out that the left can be as corrupt/hypocritical as the right?
I never approve of grand standers who feign to be for all causes (in the name of G-d) and never really come truly across as altruists.
Perfect!!
Seems like Fox always hires those who hate Obama. Why anyone listens to Hannity who never went to college is beyond understanding. Ted Haggert, Swaggert, Jimmy Bakker, all ordained ministers, go figure. All bamboozlers.
It seems that MSNBC always hires those who support Obama. Everyone knows that the Reverend Al Sharpton, who dropped out of college and was never an ordained minister, has made his money by bamboozling people–mostly those in poor neighborhoods. He’s a first class sleaze bag.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he has a scandalous piece of information on MSNBC, as well as those whom he seems to always be in a certain company of people.
Why anyone allows themselves to listen to his TV show, be seen with this man, or even give him the time of day, is beyond understanding.
The White House does. He has more visits than Monica Lewinsky.
Mr. Sharpton has a long public reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth. Why should anybody think that he has suddenly developed integrity?
Not a fan of Mr. Sharpton; not to happy with MSNBC with their highlighting of him.
“…Back to the Past”
A 19-Year-Old F.B.I. Videotape Keeps Pulling Sharpton Back to the Past
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL and SUSAN SAULNY
Published: July 25, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/25/nyregion/a-19-year-old-fbi-videotape-keeps-pulling-sharpton-back-to-the-past.html
Excerpt:
“At the time of the Newsday article, Mr. Sharpton denied as ”ludicrous” any statement that he had become an F.B.I. informant, but said that he had tapped his own phone to gather information on neighborhood drug dealers.
Andrew J. Maloney, who was serving as the United States attorney in Brooklyn, recalled yesterday that after that episode, Mr. Sharpton, facing state charges of tax evasion — he was acquitted — had visited Mr. Maloney’s office to offer to provide certain information that Mr. Maloney yesterday declined to detail.
Newsday reported Mr. Sharpton’s offer at the time. Mr. Sharpton said it concerned efforts to curb crack trafficking. Prosecutors, however, disagreed and said the information involved activities of an unidentified black leader.
At the time, The Times asked Mr. Sharpton whether he would instruct Mr. Maloney to disclose his conversations with the office. Mr. Sharpton said he would. Then he sent a note voiding his authorization.”
Thank you AP, I am going to add that link to the posting.
All Sharpton is now tryng to cover his arse so he won’t be sleeping with the fishes.
Consider the source. If this man got on the stand the opposing attorney would have a field day. I go with he flipped. He really has no moral compass, so why not? Will MSNBC protect him? Yes, because if they get rid of him they will be accused of racism. BTW, what is the demographic for his show? Does anyone actually watch it?
Undercover Sharpton
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/undercover-sharpton/2772820
Well…. What do you expect…. They have no more use for him…. Ask whitey bulger,,,,,