So we are to believe that instead of acting in the best interests of the city he was elected chief executive of, he decided that it was better to act in the capacity of an undercover law enforcement officer. That is seeking the best prosecution case against a subject rather then protecting and preventing the embarrassment to the city he took an oath to serve. Is it unreasonable to expect that there were no other alternatives or courses of action available to a mayor short of doing nothing while waiting for the FBI to act? In a city with 3000 plus jobs, would a simple mobility transfer of the investigation's subject to an assignment out of the Office of the Mayor have been onerous? Do you truly believe that the FBI would intrude on a mayor's obligation to protect his city and to their investigation by seeking the mayor's inaction? Bill Finney _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [email protected] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
