And even if they can’t prove obstruction, prosecutors could attempt to use the federal “false statements” statute — the law that, most recently and famously, sent Martha Stewart to prison even though she was never charged with the underlying offense of insider trading. To nail Weld, they would have to catch him making material statements that differ materially from documents or the claims of former Decker employees — claims prosecutors might withhold from Weld until after interviewing him.
Weld, who likely was, or easily could have been, entirely innocent of fraud might nonetheless be vulnerable to charges of multiple acts of obstruction — particularly if federal prosecutors find former employees to cooperate against him. That possibility was heightened when Weld left Louisville in August, leaving others to fire hordes of Decker employees on September 6 — reportedly while still owing them $1.4 million in salary.
This is precisely the kind of bitterness that, in a typical federal investigation, provides prosecutors with a phalanx of rancorous potential witnesses ready to testify against former bosses. Those employees suddenly remember — or creatively re-imagine — conversations in a manner contrary to the boss’s interests.
Urquilla, who considers his non-disparagement deal broken by Decker’s failure to pay his full severance, is not the only former employee talking. Steve Johnson, a former Decker admissions officer, told the FBI that he witnessed school officials falsifying documents, according to the Times. Johnson claims to have worn a wire to surreptitiously record conversations with school personnel — including one meeting which led to Weld learning that Johnson was asking for money in exchange for his silence. This suggests that the FBI was using Johnson not only to record, but to actively seek executives willing to commit obstruction of justice.
It seems safe to assume that the feds are talking to other former Decker employees and students, some of whom have talked openly to reporters about what they know.
The feds have not, however, interviewed Weld. He and his lawyer asked to come in and speak with federal prosecutors, sometime within the last month or so, according to Ford. “He’s come in and talked to us, but he has not been interviewed,” she says.
That could be another bad sign for Weld. A typical federal investigation focuses first on lower-echelon employees, leaving interviews of bigger fish until after prosecutors have a sufficient fund of knowledge to know what questions to ask — and, perhaps, how to trap the executive into lying on a subject where the investigator already knows the facts.
Of course, the feds have boxes and boxes — and data files and data files — of evidence to pore through. And we don’t know yet who the prosecutors have in their sights, if they even know yet.
Neither does Weld. And neither do New Yorkers. And that’s a tough position to campaign in, regardless of your poll numbers.
For now, his New York backers don’t seem to be retreating. “I have no second doubts,” says David H. Koch, a major Republican funder who has contributed nearly $50,000 to Weld’s campaign.
