Editorial

Depending on who does the talking, last week’s announcement demolition is beginning on the much-awaited Haven project along the Water Street-Elm Street-First Avenue-Main Street corridor, it was a matter of a desperation act by a floundering campaign or something that has been in the works for weeks if not months. Regardless of the reason for the timing, it is the reason voters get cynical about politics and politicians.

Much to the surprise of much of the public, the first of several houses came down on the corner of Main Street and First Avenue. For months going back almost a year, the beginning of demolition was considered “imminent” and only a matter of a few I’s being dotted and T’s being crossed. When we mentioned the curiousness of the timing to some in City Hall, we were told this was expected and the “October was supposed to be a busy month.”

Upon reflection of that statement, we believe the cynicism expressed by voters and the suspicion we ourselves have concerning the timing of this phase of the project is even more grounded in reality. The O’Brien administration planned it this way or somehow it was planned that come the final weeks of a general election, a project area that has lain fallow for months is moved into the next phase. It is too convenient by half.

We have seen this drama before and it was no more savory 20 years ago than it is today. We remember a bulldozer planted at the Sawmill Road project site prior to election. We remember “dog and pony” shows of several administrations promising big things to come in weeks or months and all to begin somewhere around election time.

In the case of the Haven, we have been told by people in City Hall the project was going to begin “after the first of the year.” Then the deadline was moved to March or April, then “later in the spring” and then no deadlines were given because those telling us about them were embarrassed to give a date. It was all up to the developer and when they were going to pull the trigger.

So the justification given that October was supposed to be some month of activity only lends credence to us that progress on the Haven was going to be a chit to play in the general election campaign. Of course, it was supposed to be a success story by a winning Democratic primary incumbent in Edward M. O’Brien. Instead, it is the effort of a candidate looking to retain his office by means of a write-in campaign after being rejected by his party’s members in September.

Either way, the fact that work was planned or “just happened” to coincide with an election just two weeks away is a reason people turn cynical on politicians. We are among those cynics.

Count us among those who believe a special counsel must be empaneled to look into the Uranium One deal hatched during the Obama first term. In that transaction 20 percent of the country’s uranium was transferred to the company owned by Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, more than $145 million was put into the Clinton Foundation and former President Bill Clinton was given double his fee to speak in the former Soviet Union.

Hillary Clinton was in favor of the deal as was former Attorney General Eric Holder. The deal was the subject of an investigation by the FBI and had all the earmarks of violation of several laws, including extortion. These investigations were handled by current special counsel then-FBI director Robert Mueller and two assistants now in the two and three positions in the agency.

To say this has an air of insider politics is to understate the case. The story, unearthed by Circa News and The Hill newspaper, detail a case that is corroborated by eyewitness accounts, a paper trail and a timeline that is too close to be a coincidence. Attorney General Jeff Sessions must either get a new special counsel or empanel a Grand Jury to look into the allegations.

“Pay to play” is a term being bandied about in Washington and the Clintons have a long history of parlaying their influence. This is a matter of national security and the ambivalence of an administration toward that security. The details are too numerous and too frightening to be discounted. They must be investigated and, if necessary, people prosecuted and jailed no matter what office they once held.