EXCLUSIVE: The Left’s Witch Hunt of Rick Renzi Unravels: Judge Finds Prosecution Lured Key Witness with Money

As former Congressman Rick Renzi languishes in a prison cell, the truth is finally coming out about the extent the politically motivated prosecution targeted him.

By Rachel Alexander Published on November 3, 2015

Was Republican former Congressman Rick Renzi wrongly convicted and imprisoned as part of a witch hunt targeting the conservative House member? Federal District Court Judge David Bury’s evidentiary hearing in Tucson last Monday promised to shed light on just that question.

Specifically, the judge considered whether the FBI offered money to get a witness to testify against Renzi. And not just any witness. It was the only “victim” Renzi allegedly extorted. As the hearing was ending and word of the shocking bribery was going public, Judge Bury declared that Department of Justice prosecuting attorney Gary Restaino had violated Renzi’s rights.

Who is Restaino and why was he so intent on convicting Renzi that he would violate the law? Restaino’s wife, Leezie Kim, worked closely for former Arizona Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano, and Renzi had been rumored to be a potential contender against her for governor in 2006. In 2003, Kim took a sabbatical from the Quarles & Brady law firm where she was an attorney in order to serve as the executive director of Napolitano’s Governor’s Citizens Finance Review Commission. She became the treasurer of Napolitano’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign and the treasurer of the Competitive Edge PAC in 2007, which was primarily started to support Napolitano.

Kim next became Napolitano’s general counsel in February 2008, and after Napolitano was confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security, joined her in Washington as a deputy general counsel. Kim left Washington in 2010 after news reports indicated she was involved in efforts to stonewall politically sensitive Freedom of Information Act requests. 

Like his wife, Restaino is also a staunch Democrat who has donated to numerous Democrats in the past, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano and Felecia Rotellini. He contributed money to the Arizona Democratic Party, which turned around and sent out an attack mailer against Renzi prior to the 2006 election. This happened while Restaino was prosecuting Renzi.

None of this activity was ever disclosed to the defense. But as anyone from Arizona with a political pulse knows, Napolitano has done more to promote Democrats and destroy Republicans than has any other elected public official in the state, much of it behind the scenes.

Renzi’s position all along is that he didn’t propose the federal land swap under investigation and would not have benefited from it, so there was no illegal activity. He simply was convinced it was a good deal for all the parties involved. Even the Nature Conservancy had testified in favor of the land swap. Renzi simply put the wheels in motion to make it happen. No good deed goes unpunished. 

Last July, Renzi discovered that the government’s key witness against him, businessman Philip Aries, who was to participate in the land swap, had recently emailed Restaino inquiring when his money for cooperating against Renzi would pay off. Aries had been told he would receive a monetary reward for testifying unfavorably against Renzi.

Renzi believes — and the evidence supports this conclusion — Aries may have been set to exonerate Renzi with his testimony, until the government promised Aries money, a move that is illegal when done without providing notice to the defense, and highly suspect even had they provided notice — which, of course, may have been why they were tempted not to mention it. Think about it. Imagine how much credibility Aries would have had in the eyes of the jury if the defense had been able to tell them, “Oh, by the way, the Feds paid Aries to testify against our guy, so take his testimony with a grain of a salt.” Unfortunately, the defense never got the chance to pass that choice bit of information onto the jury.

The government also engaged in multiple illegal wiretaps of phone calls to Renzi, which were thrown out of the original trial. Ironically, in one recorded call, Aries admitted it was he — not Renzi — who had proposed the land for the swap. Yet, during the trial and after the promise of reward money, Aries changed his tune and testified that it was Renzi’s idea.

The hearing on Monday was full of contradictory statements — at a minimum, one or both of the two witnesses impeached themselves; at worst, they committed perjury. The primary FBI agent on the case, Dan Odom, kept denying that he offered Aries a payoff for testifying against Renzi. But Aries discussed at length during his testimony how money was offered to him — almost breaking down into tears as he discussed how he was going through a traumatic time in his life when he received the generous offer. Aries filed bankruptcy shortly afterwards, so it was pretty clear he needed the money.

Agent Odom admitted on the stand that he received promotions following his efforts to persuade Aries to record phone calls with Renzi and testify against him. Odom also admitted he thought Aries should be compensated for his extensive work recording conversations with Renzi and assisting with the case against him — which seemed to clearly contradict his statements that he never offered Aries any money.

At a minimum, the jury should have been informed of this bias by the prosecution’s key witness and alleged victim. In criminal cases where the prosecution has withheld favorable evidence to the defense, a new trial is generally ordered. With the prosecution’s star witness now thoroughly discredited, Renzi deserves a new trial.

Judge Bury suggested at the conclusion of the hearing that Aries’ credibility had already been called into question during the original trial, so it was less material now. If so, why was Aries allowed to testify to the jury at the original trial as the prosecution’s key witness? Regardless, in Horton v. Mayle, a recent case in this Ninth Circuit jurisdiction, the court held that some evidence of bias does not diminish the value of other evidence describing a different source of bias.

This case exemplifies the problem with our legal system: it is fraught with corruption. Federal judges have a cordial relationship with Department of Justice prosecutors and want to keep it that way. No one wants to get on the wrong side of the powerful DOJ, especially when the president is calling the shots and can have anyone targeted. A former manager at the DOJ told me about a year ago that attorneys there just dutifully and quietly took their walking orders from above, fully aware their bosses were instructing them to target people they didn’t like.

Compounding the problem in Renzi’s case is the complexity of the case. The left goes out of its way to target conservatives involved in complex business deals, because they know the average American (or juror) does not have the time or knowledge to understand the facts in such complex cases. Use the phrases “white collar crime” and “public corruption” and everyone will start nodding, even if they have no idea what the facts are — it just sounds bad.

During the third Republican presidential debate last week, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a former U.S. Attorney for the DOJ, able summarized the situation: 

It has been a Justice Department that decided that they want to pick who the winners and losers are. They like General Motors, so they give them a pass. They don’t like somebody else like David Petraeus, they prosecute them and send a decorated general on to disgrace. It’s a political Justice Department.

While General Petraeus may have done an outstanding job as a general, in his personal morals, he failed, which may have put the country at risk. That being said, he was prosecuted for far less than Hillary Clinton is accused of. Renzi’s case is an even greater outrage. He is very likely not guilty at all. Renzi has suffered for too long in prison since February. At first glance, this seems like just any other criminal case. But once you dig a little, you find that what’s likely dirty here isn’t a man but a system. 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Inspiration
The Scarcity Mindset
Robert Morris
More from The Stream
Connect with Us