Disgraced former House speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi is returning to Massachusetts to testify before a federal grand jury in Worcester.
BostonGlobe.comSubscriber Log-in
Contact us for help
-
Phone
617-929-2233
Daily 8 a.m.-7 p.m.
-
Chat
Daily 7 a.m.-7 p.m.


Comments
Looks the the crap is about to hit the fan, we are a very corrupt state.
No matter how many go to prison the people of the Commonwealth will continue to blindly vote for anyone with a D after their name.
This comment has been removed.
It's interesting this all happened in the probation department. I thought those folks were the right and wrong, black and white, up hold the law thinkers. If this all happened with them imagine what's going on with the rest of the government. So much corruption so little time!
ippudo, it was more likely in the Probation Department PRECISELY BECAUSE it is supposed to uphold the law. Think about it -- this kind of wholesale corruption needs a good cloak. A recent editorial in The Globe astutely pointed out how very GREATLY things have CHANGED since Mayor Kevin White helped turn this Parochial, Cronyistic, and Corrupt Boston into a World Class City. No more penny ante. To be a World Class City we must have World Class Cronyism and Corruption (and I think a good case for that will be coming up courtesy of the feds). So, if may be so forward, may I suggest that The Globe commit and tell us WHICH World Class City we are like most like (I am pleased that the reference to Athens was dropped, whether that had to do with reports of their laziness, enormous debt, and future default, or not). W
Gee. wonder if Sal's successor is starting to think how he might go Sal one better and get his first choice as the spot for His Samcation. And doesn't the Glob do just juicy sweet renditions of the stories it tells about Demohack pols in its home state? Wowzer Bowzer.
EXCERPT: But a person with knowledge of the situation said that DiMasi's move to Massachusetts is to appear before a grand jury. That person and a second who is familiar with ongoing grand jury proceedings declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly about a confidential grand jury issue. COMMENT; What about our constitutional rights in this matter? First, do we not have the right to know what's happening in a grand jury invetigation so that possible defendants's lawyers can have a say in the investigation? And by what constitutional right can someone zip the lip of someone who may have inside information? Everything should be open in an open, democratic society. Shhh.
Oh, please, loin some English.