Two weeks ago, we were buzzing about "TV-lawyers-cum-DC-GOP-Power Couple" Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing dropping into Cactus Country to help outta-control Sheriff Joe Arpaio and cohort/County Attorney Andrew Thomas push forward their hasty arrest-before-indictment of County Supervisor Don Stapley.  (Zach Roth's article)  Today, Stapley's colleagues put the brakes on that made-for-publicity plan.

The Board's approval was on the agenda for tomorrow a.m., but was pulled by Chair Max Wilson today.  The Arizona Republic obtained a letter from the County Manager detailing the reasons to pull the rug out from under the Joe&Vicki&Joe&Andy show.  Those reasons include not following hiring procedures, that you can't pull in out-of-state attorneys, that there was no cost estimate, and that Thomas didn't have the authority to appoint them.

But, the one I found very interesting is that Arpaio and Thomas planned to drain the RICO fund (monies seized from "corrupt organizations", etc) to pay the high-priced DC duo, but there is apparently not enough money in the fund for it.  And, here is where the Republic's story fails to connect a couple of key dots.

Twice last year, the weekly Phoenix New Times reported on County Attorney Thomas' questionable uses of that public fund advancing.  First, they documented $168,000 of expenditures given to questionable church-based and proselytizing programs.   Then, they discovered (disclosure: that's my e-mail screen shot in the article) that Thomas spent $11,500 in RICO funds to "sponsor" a "book tour/speaking appearances" by a conservative highly-rated talk show host (during Thomas' reelection campaign, no less - and, yes, the host endorsed and talked him up for the rest of the campaign).  There are more, too.

As described, the U.S. Justice Department guidelines for how RICO funds may be spent: racketeering investigations, gang prevention, substance abuse programs, and substance abuse education.  Not only did the actual expenditures not fall into those categories and/or were of questionable constitutionality, but even the proposal to use the monies to hire diGenova and Toensing for a non-racketeering post-arrest investigation and prosecution wouldn't pass muster.

I'm glad the Republic published Smith's memo (which they were likely handed in the on-going intra-county battle), and I hope that this post will prompt them to push the story further.  (They have shown a reluctance to connect the dots on Thomas and Arpaio stories.  Especially when the New Times got there first.)