Recently, we have criticized Democrats for their poor judgment over the past two years and also pointed out where they have violated both the law and the public trust, engaged in cronyism and abused Smithfield's resources for personal gain and to pursue a political vendetta.

We have pointed out our record of bipartisan appointments, working for the people of Smithfield and maintaining honest and open government. We are happy to engage is a detailed and spirited debate over various issues, and whenever we cite facts we do our best to produce documents and citations to prove the them. Unfortunately, our opponents have no such scruples.

Smithfield Democrat Chairman Lawrence J. Mancini wrote a letter to the editor which was published in the last issue of the Observer. After reading it, one thing is abundantly clear. Mr. Mancini is a bold faced liar.

There are many ways to lie, and Larry Mancini's best skill is in omitting facts of which he is well aware to deliberately misrepresent an event.

Specifically, he claimed that the former Chairperson of our party and the former Republican Council President of "vandalizing stunts." Of course he won't tell the entire story, because it puts the lie to his statements, which were conveniently timed to be published so they could not be responded to before the election. He also lied directly when he said that a Republican member of the Planning Board used "Town Hall" computers to send email soliciting donations.

Let's take the easy one first. Yes, a member of the Planning Board sent an email to people inviting them to a Republican fund raiser. This email was sent from her personal computer, located in her home, using her personal email account. No "Town Hall" computer, as Mancini claimed, was ever involved in any way whatsoever. Until that letter, no one ever claimed that any Town Hall computer was used, not even Mancini himself. Mancini snidely said "remember that?" Apparently it is Mancini who forgot. Or did he? More likely he just added that important, and false, detail to try to make an issue of a complete non-issue.

On the the alleged vandalism, we will be clear. No Republicans stole or vandalized any signs from anyone. Period. Details below, but in a nutshell:

• The police investigated
  
• The town attorney advised that there were no grounds for charges
  
• The attorney General's office agreed that there were no grounds for charges
  
• Months later, the Democrats learned that a Republican filed a Hatch Act complaint against two Democrats on the Smithfield Town Council
  
• Mancini twice went to the police station and demanded that charges be filed
  
• The new town attorney, appointed by Democrats, contradicted the Attorney General's office and advised that, after seven months, there were grounds for charges
  
• At great expense to the taxpayers of Smithfield, a three day trial was held
  
• After three days of prosecution, the judge dismissed the case because there was no evidence whatsoever to support the charges
  
• Several months later, the defendants learned that the prosecutor had illegally withheld documents in the possession of the police which were clearly exculpatory and which, by law, had to be disclosed to the defense

  The facts of this incident were well reported in the Providence Journal, including the end result: The judge dismissing the charges after the prosecution rested and before the defense even began their case. There is no evidence whatsoever that these allegations were true, because they were not true.

  During the night before the 2006 election, exactly one person - a Democrat volunteer and union president - claimed he saw Republicans stealing campaign signs and called the police, who came to the scene and took no action. The next day, the police investigated carefully and files a report. They had great difficulty getting this single person to come in to give a statement.

  Finally, he did come in to give a statement. His statement was at significant variance with the statements of the police officers who were on the scene.

  The Town's attorney reviewed the reports and determined that no grounds for charges existed. To avoid any appearance of favoritism, the attorney requested an opinion from the Attorney General's office. The experienced prosecutors in that office agreed that no grounds for charges existed.

  After several months, Democrats learned that a member of the Republican Committee filed a Hatch Act complaint against Stephen Tocco and another against Bernard Hawkins. Immediately after this, Mancini went to the Police Station and demanded that charges be filed against our Chairperson. He did this twice.

  The Democrats then had their own town attorney - Tim Kane - disagree with the prior attorney and the prosecutors in the Attorney General's office and advise the police department that there were grounds for charges.

  After seven months the police reluctantly filed charges, as they do in all cases where the town attorney advises them that their are grounds for charges. Mr. Poirier was never charged.

  Finally, a trial began. Smithfield had 7 police officers, two town attorneys and two school department employees tied up in court for four full days. Some of these people were being paid overtime. On the first day, the judge recused himself, and a new trial date was set.

  The new trial began. The town prosecutor spend three full days presenting his weak case. During this time, he called the one witness who gave testimony. His testimony contradicted the statement he had given to police the day after the incident. The prosecutor then had police officers testify, and their testimony completely contradicted the testimony of the single witness.

  After three days of this nonsense, the defense attorney made a motion to dismiss the case. In order for the judge to grant this motion, she had to weigh the evidence with the best light of the prosecution and, if that evidence was not sufficient, only then could the charges be dismissed. Even with this high bar, the judge dismissed the charges.

  Months later, it was revealed that the prosecutor had failed to disclose the existence of certain documents, which is clearly illegal. The documents not disclosed were absolutely exculpatory and the prosecutor had a legal obligation to disclose them. He did not, because they were embarrassment to the democrats.

  Finally, Mancini admits that while Republicans controlled the Town council, he was easily able to get records of legal expenses simply for the asking. This is because Republicans follow the law and believe in open and transparent government. Mancini didn't mention that under the control of democrats, the Town Council was found guilty by the Attorney General of violating the Open meeting Act.

  The fact that Democrats selected this deceitful man as their party leader speaks volumes about the judgment and ethics of the Smithfield Democrats.