Vincent Gray Meets Obama: The D.C. Council chairman's mayoral campaign spread the news by email, Twitter, and blog post: Vincent Gray had shaken the hand of the president of the United States! Less impressive: They bumped into each other at a basketball game. Even less impressive: The campaign saw fit to announce that Gray had "hung out with" Obama's personal assistant, Reggie Love, as well. Note to Gray: You are running for mayor of what is supposed to be a worldly, sophisticated big city. The sort of place where pols are supposed to be above posting photo streams of their celeb run-ins. Or are they? -3

Barry Exonerated: Well, sorta. The director of the city's campaign finance office wrote Ward 8 Councilmember Marion Barry that he had failed to disclose a personal relationship with girlfriend/earmark beneficiary Donna Watts-Brighthaup, which "would have resulted in the transparency of the transaction and removed any cloud from the contract process." But the office also declared that the former mayor hadn't violated any laws—which is a nice change. +1

LaVar Arrington Joins Washington Post: The former Redskins linebacker will blog and do video commentary on football and other sports. Arrington hasn't been shy about bashing the team on his radio show—if he's half as harsh as former running back John Riggins is on YouTube, the Post may have found itself a winner. (And yes, that assumes the Redskins will still mostly inspire despair, not joy, among fans this season.) At Washington City Paper, we're trying to find our own Redskin-turned-blogger. Maybe Albert Haynesworth will be available? Come on over, Albert; we'll pay you a bonus of at least $21 and won't make you do any wind sprints. +2

Metro Delays Fare Hikes: Taking the subway during rush hour today? You'll save money, thanks to... Well, thanks to the fact that Metro managed to confuse everyone about exactly how the new fare structure scheduled to begin this week is supposed to work. New "peak of the peak" surcharges are supposed to take effect, but evidently the whole concept was too much for Washingtonians to handle. Considering riders are already used to paying different amounts at different times of day or to go to different stations, it's a little unclear why Metro felt this new setup wouldn't fly. The transit system will lose $60,000 because of the screwup, but hey, at least you'll save 20 cents. (Now, if only the train you're waiting for would arrive.) +1

Friday's Needle rating: 48 Today's score: 1 Today's Needle rating: 49

Donna Watts-Brighthaupt, beloved folk hero and future bold name and/or photo in Barry obit montage, is impossible to figure out. Yesterday, she attended Barry's State of the Ward speech. Before the speech, she posted this cryptic comment on Facebook:

"You'll soon know why MB the politician continues to keep me close. I'll work with him and anyone who'll place my Ward's interests and future before their individual personal goals, feelings & public positions. The tougher it gets, the tougher I'll become."

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Whether you're a member of the D.C.  Council or one of Ward 8's ANC Commissioners, you have rendered an opinion about the conduct of Councilmember Marion S. Barry, as laid out in the Bennett Report.

Yet one constituency has yet to speak out on the politician's ethics: Jewelry merchants.

Their voice must be heard in this matter, given the centrality of their wares to the latest Barry flare-up. As City Desk outlined, Barry had given his former girlfriend Donna Watts-Brighthaupt gifts–clothes, yes, sundry items, yes. And jewelry!

"Gifts," in this context, is a kind construction. What the councilmember  actually did was secure $15,000 in contract work for her. Then, after purchasing the items, he made her repay him out of the contract funds. Was this a kickback? Barry claimed to Bennett investigators that those gifts were really just, um, loans.

Kickbacks, loans, repayments, repossessions, whatever—the gallant men of the jewelry industry are saying that it all runs counter to their core values. “I just think the whole thing is fishy," says Jonathan Mervis, the digital strategist for Mervis Diamond Importers. "I hate to be quick to judgment, but I don’t think there’s real commitment there."

Local jewelers say Barry violated all kinds of relationship ethics.  They've never heard of anyone giving jewelry, and then claiming it as a loan.

David Boone, vice president of Boone & Sons, explains that when jewelry is exchanged it's supposed to be a deep, maybe even relationship-saving, moment. "It makes the guy feel good and hopefully the gal feels good or guy-guy or gal-gal whatever the case is. I always tell people, if you take guilt out of the equation, there’s going to be a lot of jewelers out of business. Guilt has something to do with it, but love has more to do with it.”

Boone says that hypothetically Barry's jewelry-as-loan is a really bad boyfriend move. "That's a message that you shouldn't be together," he says. It's so bad, he's not quite buying it.

The loan? Well, Boone says: "That doesn't make sense."

Says Mervis: “You’d have to ask why. Why did he not say this from the outset? He has to have a reason. Maybe he lost his job. Maybe there’s a reason why his portfolio went to nothing and he can’t afford it. This girl shouldn’t be quick to jump to conclusions. But she should certainly start asking some questions.”

“It defies the meaning of gift," Mervis adds. "If you give a gift and you later ask for money then you never gave a gift.”

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Mary Buckley, of ANC 8B: Buckley says "everyone should be treated the same." If the Council is planning to take any action against Marion Barry, "there should be policies, something in writing, that what happens [happens to any councilmember], not just Marion Barry. If there's a policy that already exists, a purely outlined policy, then everyone should be treated according to the written policy. I don't think there's any law that Marion Barry violated to be singled out to be treated differently." She says Barry should "absolutely not" step down. "He hasn't done anything to step down for." She adds: "This is an allegation," she says. "The court hasn't found Marion Barry guilty. If a court finds Marion Barry guilty of anything—or anyone else—they would have to face the consequences."

Barbara Clark, of ANC 8A: Of the Bennett Report, she says, "It seems like that whole thing was a gray area, for me. 'Cause it was pretty opinionated, because there was nothing that I could see, that it was just a thing of what other people do. Sometimes you might hire a friend. ... I'm saying these things happen. I wish they would concentrate more on the positive things he does." She doesn't think Barry should step down: "I'm a native Washingtonian, and I know how he has championed for the have-nots. I don't see anybody right now that I can put a finger on to say that champions the have-nots. We need to think about that. Because somebody needs to think about the poor people. There are a lot of homeless people here. And not only that, just Ward 8 itself, it is one of the poorest, it's the poorest ward in Washington, D.C. It's all social services, no business or anything else, unemployment, a lot of ex-offenders are housed here, and crimes. It's all economics, and I always felt like some of the things we do have, the programs we do have, is because of the former mayor." She adds: "As far as I'm concerned, he's always, always has looked out for the poor. I think sometimes things get taken out of context. I'm not saying Marion has always been—he's a very charismatic person. He's a good-looking guy, and no matter what, women are always going to after any man who's in power, anyway. ... Look at Tiger Woods." And to those who say Barry is too old to serve, she says, there are U.S. senators in their 80s and 90s. "He's functioning well. There's nothing wrong with his mind. He's a brilliant man. He definitely hasn't forgotten where he's come from."

Olivia Henderson, of ANC 8D: Laughing, she asks, "Will this be held against me? They always say that I'm very confrontational." She continues: "I'm not saying he was right or wrong. However, there should be some type of consequence." Should he step down? Henderson says she isn't sure anyone would even notice if he did. "We do need better leadership over here in Ward 8. He is my representation and leader when I look for a councilmember, and I just feel as though something needs to happen now. I don't know how they impeach a person or anything like that. But we hold these people accountable for what they state. I understand what he has done in the past. But what is he doing in the future? I definitely think that he needs to be made an example out of. If not, they will continue to keep doing the same thing over and over." One more thing: "It really doesn't even matter if he steps down or not because I don't think he represents us at all."

Mitchell Hawkins, of ANC 8B: "Actually, I have not been following up with it. A lot of people tell me I should keep up with current news and things. I've been hearing about it, and I know there's some investigation or something like that going on. I don't know the outcome of it." He thinks Barry should step down because of his health problems. Otherwise, he adds, "I think it should just be dealt accordingly as if it was any other councilperson."

Carolyn Bridges-Ward, of ANC 8A: "Something I don't agree with is this lady [Donna Watts-Brighthaupt, Barry's ex-girlfriend]—she's the main course to the problem. The lady who Councilmember Barry was supposed to have given the grant to, if she truly worked for the grant, there's no problem. But I'm saying if she didn't truly work for the grant, then that should be a problem." Bridges-Ward doesn't care much about Barry's personal life. "I'm a Christian, so I feel like what happens in people's bedroom should stay in people's bedroom. It's not doing the community no good." And she doesn't think Barry should step down. "I don't see the need of him stepping down, not unless they find some discrepancy. I can't tell the government what to do, I'm just saying. If there's any monies to be paid back... or if there's not any discrepancies, just move on. It's enough of that out here already." Should there be any punishment at all? "Are you going to punish him for having an affair, or are you going to punish him for doing the wrong thing with the grant? I wouldn't remove him, not at this stage. No one is perfect, I'm just saying. I say let's move on."

Absalom Jordan, of ANC 8D: First, Jordan says he finds the Bennett report "flawed," in part because "we don't know the level of evidence that constitutes proof" of any potential wrongdoing. "We don't know if it has to be overwhelming evidence or clear and convincing." Second, Jordan says, Barry has apologized to the council. The council can't remove him: "No one can stop him from serving." He adds: "My concern is that I don't see enough evidence that would warrant him stepping down. He has said he accepts responsibility for certain things, that he admits that he shouldn't have done some things. He said he made some mistakes. He's apologized. I'm not looking for him to step down."

I'm sure LL Daily will have more on this. If Councilmember Marion Barry wants to know how his lame apology is being received, he's got at least one answer. WaPo's editorial board is calling for Barry to step down. The board writes:

"It frankly is disgusting to hear Mr. Barry talk, as he did Tuesday, about the needs of his resource-poor community when his main agenda has been his own welfare. He seems not to recognize the connection between the deprivations of Ward 8 and his lack of effective leadership. If Mr. Barry were really sorry, he would realize it is time for him to make way for someone who can deliver. Or, at the very least, to pay back the money wasted on girlfriends and cronies."

Will the D.C. Council offer as strong a rebuke? Will the residents of Ward 8?

*photo by Darrow Montgomery.

On Tuesday, Robert S. Bennett laid out an astonishingly detailed case against Ward 8 Councilmember Marion S. Barry Jr. and concluded that the matter should be referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Bennett's conclusion raises the rather comical notion that the U.S. Attorney's Office consists of a bunch of bureaucrats sitting around the office waiting for "referrals" to come across the fax machine.

In fact, the federal prosecutors that oversee crime and justice in the District need no stamped-and-signed invitation to take on a case. When news broke last summer concerning Barry's controversial business and personal relationship with Donna Watts-Brighthaupt, law enforcement officials soon began looking into the allegations. They quizzed Watts-Brighthaupt, who refuses to say how many meetings she had with the law.

And so far, prosecutors have not charged Barry with kickbacks or directing money to fishy nonprofits staffed by supporters. The Bennett report may read like a slam dunk. A jury may not see it that way.

Prosecutors may be showing restraint for one reason: Donna Watts, on the witness stand. Just watch her interview with Fox 5. Or read our interview with her earlier this week about those kickbacks.

Today, City Desk reached Watts at her home asked her about the prospect of a criminal prosecution.

"I hope it doesn't go there," Watts says.

Watts went on to say:

"I hope that [Barry] won't have to be prosecuted. I don't think it warrants the U.S. Attorney's Office. I don't think it should go that far, really I don't. Not for what he did with me.... I hope the people we elected as our leaders will exemplify true leadership...research..ask the right questions...and deal with this problem internally."

Would you testify?

"I haven't thought about it," Watt says.

"As far as Marion is concerned, let's just say I hope the truth, the entire truth is revealed," Watts says.  "And the council will take all into account before deciding Marion's fate."

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Much of this scandal broke after his July 4th stalking arrest. Soon after, Barry and/or his staff held multiple press conferences outside the Wilson Building. Instead of coming clean, his spokesperson read statements that simply bashed the character of Barry's former-girlfriend Donna Watts-Brighthaupt. [And in secret, Barry continued to pursue her]. Barry's own response centered on threatening to sue the U.S. Park Police for properly arresting him in the first place. He also firmly believed that there was nothing wrong in hiring girlfriends.

As Bennett's investigation went into high gear, Barry used that time to keep tabs on witnesses, and pressure Watts-Brighthaupt to not hand over critical evidence. Barry also sat for his own deposition. If there was a time he could have presented his rebuttal to Bennett's charges, that would be the time. Instead, he refused to answer certain questions, played dumb in other instances, and referred to those kickbacks as "loans." Bennett's people found his answers to not be so credible.

As Catania told WaPo:

"These are very serious allegations. The conclusions — they are not allegations, they are conclusions — by our special counsel amount to the fact that Marion took kickbacks" from a former girlfriend, Catania said. "The council does not have the authority to remove Mr. Barry from office. That responsibility rests with the voters of Ward 8. But we do have the authority to determine which committee he sits on and whether or not he chairs a committee."

No one on the D.C. Council expects Barry to suddenly come up with evidence that will save him. So why wait to start deliberating on what to do?

According to the report, Barry told Watts-Brighthaupt about his concern that another crony, Rev. Anthony Motley was deposed without a lawyer present. "He was against that," Watts-Brighthaupt told Bennett's team. "He told him not to come. But he believes Reverend Motley did okay."

Barry also reached out to Brenda Richardson, who ran the fishy non-profits, and inquired about her own testimony. Bennett's team writes in their report:

"Apparently, Mr. Barry attempted to monitor the Council's inquiry by talking to witnesses who had been interviewed or deposed. Ms. Watts-Brighthaupt testified that in her presence Mr. Barry called Ms. Richardson on his cell phone, inquired 'How did you do?' listened as Ms. Richardson 'spoke for a while,' and after hanging up, told her that Ms. Richardson said, 'I think I did okay.'"

Barry, during his own deposition, was asked about his meddling. Bennett's team found his answers not credible.

According to the Bennett report, Barry stated in his deposition: "any allegations that I tried to discourage anyone from cooperating with this investigation is absolutely false, false, false." Anyone making that allegation is a "liar."

But Barry did admit that he may have mentioned Scott Bolden to Watts-Brighthaupt and may have mentioned several lawyers in town who were assisting individuals in the investigation. He could not recall whether he discouraged Watts-Brighthaupt from turning over her hard drive to authorities.

As the deposition was coming to a close, Barry announced that he would like to make a statement to Bennett's team. He addressed the allegations that he tried to hinder the investigation:

"You had a question about advising not to cooperate, et cetera. I want to make it crystal clear I've not done that. There's no reason to. I think that I've followed whatever procedures there were — that were there or lack thereafter [sic], in some instances, so I just wanted to again reiterate that, if people make allegations about any and everything, but I have nothing but respect for this process, I voted for the Resolution. Anybody asked me about why I voted for it, because I believe it's the right thing to do.

So therefore, having done that, I would not go behind, trying to hide anything or cover anything. There's nothing to cover up from my perspective."

The Bennett Report's response:

"As the findings make clear, Special Counsel does not credit Council Member Barry's testimony in significant aspects. To the contrary, Special Council finds there is substantial evidence that Mr. Barry engaged in conduct to impede the Council's investigation. This conduct may implicate criminal laws respecting obstruction and false testimony, and should be referred to appropriate authorities for investigation."

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Granted, kickbacks are bad. Steering contracts to cronies—bad as well.

Yet another of the allegations in the just-released report by Special Counsel Robert S. Bennett builds an even more scandalous, Nixonian case against Ward 8 Councilmember Marion S. Barry Jr. This allegation is that Barry advised a "material witness to withhold documents and information requested or subpoenaed by Special Counsel."

Hmm, who could that "material witness" have been?

Let's go to the report, which lays out some details on how Barry's obstructionism unfolded.

Barry's former girlfriend and crony Donna Watts-Brighthaupt completed a deposition with Bennett's crew on Nov. 5 of last year. She was asked to come back a week later, on Nov. 12, and to bring along her laptop.

Barry happened to alight on her house on Nov. 11 after returning from a trip to Memphis. He came with an invitation to Watts to go to Atlanta the following day. At that point, Watts' daughter reminded her of her depositional responsibilities, and Barry sprung into his persuasive mode, questioning why she had to go back.

According to Watts' testimony, Barry counseled her not to turn over her hard drive or her bank statements. Such a move, he said, would be ill-advised, considering that the special counsel is not a grand jury and doesn't deserve that level of deference.

Watts reported in her deposition how Barry put the situation to her: "You might think you don't have anything to hide. You don't know what they will find that will hurt you. I'm not worried about it. I'm not going to get hurt. It's going to be you and I can't help you." Just to clarify: That quote is Watts recounting how Barry described to her the situation with the special counsel investigation.

On Jan. 25, she told the special counsel that Barry advised her to say "I can't recall" if she couldn't remember something verbatim.

If nothing else, the report's nitty-gritty on Barry's wise counsel to Watts reflects the continued intensity of their relationship, a bizarre one even by Barry's standards. The relationship first came to public light after Barry was arrested on July 4 for allegedly stalking Watts. At the time, virtually all accounts of the affair referred to Watts as Barry's "former" girlfriend.

Barry, however, is a guy who doesn't pay much heed to "former."

I spent a good while at Watts' house last July, at a time when she and Barry were supposed to be history. During a two-hour chat in Watts' kitchen, Barry left multiple messages on her home voicemail. This wasn't the first instance of his serial calling after the stalking bust. During these calls, he made all kinds of promises, focusing particular attention on Watts' children and their financial needs. He said he would do anything for them.

"I'm trying to help you," Barry said in one message. "I'm trying to be in love with you."

In another instance, Barry said: "I wouldn't give you a nickel. Well, I'll give you a couple nickles."

Sometimes Barry was nice on the messages. Sometimes he was angry. It went back and forth. Watts didn't like to even listen to Barry's ramblings.

But as the months passed, it became all too clear that Barry wasn't going to let up. Watts started returning Barry's calls with one mission in mind: To get the councilmember to clear her name. Barry's spokesperson Natalie Williams had issued statement after statement calling into question Watts' mental state.

Watts wanted Barry to condemn those statements. Barry wanted her to condemn Washington City Paper.

"I wanted him to tell the truth about what he had Natalie Williams do. I wanted him to change that. Admit that it wasn't true–what Natalie Williams and his lawyers said about me," Watts says now.  "He wanted me to blame you and City Paper and my ex-husband for that sensational headline. ["You Put Me Out in Denver 'Cause I Wouldn't Suck Your Dick"] I wanted him to right a wrong. He wanted me to validate his belief of what type of paper you were. Neither one of us were giving in."

Watts says that she and Barry still talk. Through the fall and winter, the two continued to talk. The night Barry advised Watts to stonewall the special counsel, he slept over.

The next morning, Barry returned to the issue of the Bennett investigation with Watts.  The Bennett report states: "He raised the issue again, telling Ms. Watts-Brighthaupt, 'I would advise you to think about it, to await Scott Bolden's phone call, and he will give you a name of a lawyer."

The report goes on to state:

"Later that morning, Mr. Barry attempted to reach Ms. Watts-Brighthaupt several times by phone–'bout two times on my cell and about three times on my home.' He succeeded on one occasion. During that conversation, according to Ms. Watts-Brighthaupt, Mr. Barry told her the following: 'He says it is in my best interest not to take my computer; I would be a fool; I am making things worse for myself; he cannot help me if I do it."

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

Throughout Robert S. Bennett's investigation of Ward 8 Councilmember Marion S. Barry Jr.'s official ethics, Donna Watts-Brighthaupt had one wish: to have her work vindicated. She believed in the research and writing she'd done on young leadership under the contract awarded to her by the councilmember. Even after her project had become the subject of headlines and council scrutiny. Even after her rocky personal relationship with the councilmember had been thoroughly dissected. She still believed she had done good work.

Today, Bennett's investigation declared that her contract work was not worth the $15,000 and contained "significant portions" that "were copied without attribution from publicly available materials located on the Internet."

No plagiarism took place, says Watts. If anything, she cut and pasted sections from her own college papers. Anything else she clearly marked as "samples" of what the project might entail.  Watts stands by her work: "I went beyond what was promised on the original contract. And I could no further until [Barry's] office replied to my draft."

Watts says she never saw the contract approved by the Council until her deposition before Bennett's team.

Whatever the case, Watts was working without an editor, she says. After she turned in her work, she says she was given no feedback from Barry's staff.  She was supposed to report back to Barry's chief of staff every two weeks. And every time, Barry's chief of staff blew her off. "She never made the time," Watts says. "From then on, that program remained a draft. They didn't edit and tell me what they wanted further."

Barry took a limited role in Watts' actual work product. "He thought it was good," Watts says. "But he would refer me to his chief of staff."

But Barry's interest peaked when Watts' check would arrive. According Bennett's investigation, Barry would take out portions of her check to cover gifts he had given her—-jewelry, clothes, and payments for utility bills.

Barry would personally deliver the checks to her. He would then insist she cash the check at a nearby bank and give him a portion of the money.

Watts says she didn't think of it as a kickback. But she was shocked when he started making her give him a cut of the checks. "I thought I had earned my money," Watts says. "I thought that was money that I had earned.... I never wanted to owe him anything. I never wanted to owe Marion anything....I didn't want to be beholden to him."

Watts couldn't say how much Barry took from her checks. "In short, I don't know," she says.

*file photo by Darrow Montgomery.

A key finding in the report's executive summary says that Barry would help Watts-Brighthaupt with expenses and even buy her "gifts, including jewelry and a coat." Then, he'd "personally" deliver a city check to her and garner some of the proceeds. Said city check came from a contract that Barry had awarded to Watts-Brighthaupt.

Prosecutable offense? Let the authorities decide. My guess is that they'll leave this alone, given the results of the last attempt to prosecute the councilmember (tax evasion).

Yet it's clear that this conduct is grounds for a romantic indictment. Think about what's going on here: Boyfriend regales girlfriend with gifts and all kinds of generosity, assisting with the payment of utility bills and the like. In the process, boyfriend likely reaps all kinds of fringe benefits from the goodwill generated by such generosity, though we don't have any direct evidence thereof.

Then, when payday comes, boyfriend collects from girlfriend. And not in a civil manner, either. Coercive would be a better characterization. According to the Bennett findings, Barry would wait in the car while Watts-Brighthaupt cashed the check. That's an astounding showing of unboyfriendliness.

Sums matter a great deal in this narrative. If the contract that Barry had arranged for Watts-Brighthaupt had been a whopper—like, say, $150,000 over a year or something of that magnitude—then perhaps a romance could sustain the strain of a boyfriend looking for repayment of his "loans." But the actual sum of the contract was $15,000.

So, to summarize: Barry arranged poverty-level earnings for his girlfriend and used them to woo her. QED: Bad boyfriend.

Well, it sure as hell wasn't a whitewash.

Attorney Bob Bennett this morning presented the findings of a five- seven-month investigation into D.C. Council contracts and earmarks—a probe prompted by the shenanigans of Ward 8 Councilmember Marion Barry this summer. [Download a PDF of the report's executive summary; download the full report.]

The blockbuster finding is that Barry handed council checks to girlfriend Donna Watts-Brighthaupt, then ordered her to go to a bank, cash the checks, and give him part of the proceeds. Barry, in a deposition, protested that any money she handed over was to repay loans Barry had given.

But, Bennett noted today, the "evidence is overwhelming" that Barry illegally took city funds. He called for the council to refer the matter to the U.S. attorney and the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance.

The other part of the Bennett investigation concerned the longstanding council practice of awarding "earmarks"—noncompetitive grants to various nonprofits favored by councilmembers. Bennett and his team, following Washington City Paper's reporting on the matter, found massive irregularities with the process by which several nonprofits, created at Barry's behest, were funded and operated. Like City Paper, Bennett found that incorporation documents were forged, that large amounts of money were steered to political supporters, and that Barry remained in control of the groups.

In testimony before the council today, Bennett pointed to two Barry cronies who personally benefited from the earmarking arrangement—Brenda Richardson, his constituent service director, who made more than $100,000 through the groups, and Anthony Motley, the at-large council candidate, who made more than $50,000.

Aside from the critique of Barry's practices, investigators were just as critical of the earmarking process writ large. Prior to the presentations of the report's findings, Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray announced a number of changes he planned to make to the earmarking process. But Bennett & Co. made clear that any changes to the system would be little more than cosmetic.

Bennett testified that there has been "little transparency, "no competition," and "little or no accountability" in earmarking. Earmarks, another investigator reported, provide "substantial opportunities for waste and abuse"; the official recommendation is that the council "seriously consider ending earmark grantmaking as currently practiced."

Bennett called the earmarks "like a narcotic drug" to politicians. Once they start using them, they can't get enough of them.

Barry's misbehavior didn't end then the contracts and earmarking was exposed. Bennett described a campaign by Barry to obstruct his investigation, in part by minimizing the seriousness of the probe and attacking its legitimacy, and in part by attempting to convince Watts-Brighthaupt not to share key evidence with investigators.

In the end, Bennett concluded, Barry "breached the high ethical standards expected on him" and "breached the public trust."

Bennett, before presenting his findings, explained that over the course of the inquiry, a team of dozens of lawyers spanning two top firms (he moved from Skadden Arps to Hogan & Hartson amid the probe) "collected and reviewed 575,000 pages of documents obtained from numerous sources" since the council authorized the investigation in July.

Barry for his part protested mightily Bennett's investigations and its findings, protesting inquiries into his sexual behavior and noting the lack of "written procedures" for awarding personal service contracts.

Bennett swatted the latter claim away readily: "I wouldn't expect the city council to have written rules—with all due respect, sir—that you should not give [contracts] to people you have a relationship with."

Barry's ultimate defense: "I don't apologize for getting as many resources to the ward as I can." Never mind that the investigation found that most of those resources found their way into the pockets of Barry's political allies rather than his greater constituency.

"We couldn't have been more fair to Mr. Barry," Bennett said before the dais. "We plain and simple found that he did some things wrong."

Come summer, nine people were lost
When train control signals got crossed
Commutes were enraging
Since Metro is aging
But fixing it comes at great cost

A self-proclaimed pol "who is moral"
Turned stalkerish after a quarrel
It got convoluted
But problems were rooted
In lack of attention, um, oral

The lesson that Graham learned this year
Was watch whom you're keeping too near
With interns so shooty
And Loza's cab booty
It's huge that Jim's still in the clear

Forgive me for what I have missed
(I know it's a really huge list)
There's Rhee and there's Fenty
For now, this is plenty
It's time to go out and get kissed!

"You put me out in Denver 'cause I wouldn't suck your dick."

—Donna Watts-Brighthaupt, ex-Barry paramour, mid-June

Tax scofflawism, kidney surgery, gay-marriage stance—all that was enough to accord Barry headliner status in any review of 2009. But there was more. Oh, was there ever more. Barry found himself in a Park Police lockup on the night of July 4, after an officer spotted him driving erratically, tailing a female companion who had accused him of stalking her. The charges were dropped, but the incident began as messy a chapter as Barry's had in his life. His fiery relationship with the alleged stalkee, Watts-Brighthaupt, was memorialized in a series of e-mails and voice mails, which included the quote above referring to an incident between the two at 2008's Democratic National Convention. Barry's problems deepened afterwards—when the Washington Post reported that he'd given Watts-Brighthaupt council contracts and after Washington City Paper reported on his practice of awarding millions in earmarks to nonprofits he created and controlled.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

More from LL's Quotes of 2009

I guess I didn't get the memo.

Apparently, this is not the time to ask Councilmember Marion Barry or his staff about Sharon Bowen. Barry paid Bowen $50,000 to work on poverty issues in 2007 and 2008. Bowen was another Barry girlfriend.

Why not today? HBO is premiering a documentary on Barry's life. It's either that or he's dead. When asked about Bowen's supposed organizing of a poverty summit, Barry's spokesperson Natalie Williams made it clear that the press should be focusing on more important things—like legacies.

Williams' immediate response to my Bowen question: "All of our interviews are focused now around Barry's legacy."

When I made it clear that I really just wanted some clarification on the Bowen matter, Williams simply hung up on me.