Jackson Free Press sets record straight on NRSC attack ads against Musgrove

The Republicans are desperate to try anything to prevent Ronnie Musgrove from winning the November Senate special election against Roger Wicker. The polls show Musgrove within striking difference, and those polls do not factor in any increase in turnout that Obama might bring to the table. They also show Wicker getting 20% of the black vote. That won't happen. So the desperation button has been punched at the NRSC who have launched attack ads attempting to tie Ronnie Musgrove with Dickie Scruggs and Paul Minor. Both contributed to Ronnie Musgrove's gubernatorial campaigns over six years ago. Neither had been indicted or implicated of wrong doings at the time of the donations.

From the Jackson Free Press:

“Paul Minor and Dickie Scruggs: trial lawyers who gave thousands to Ronnie Musgrove’s campaigns,” the NRSC ad states. “... Minor had so much influence with Musgrove, insiders called him ‘the judgemaker.’ Now Minor and Scruggs are in jail, convicted of trying to bribe a judge. Ronnie Musgrove: a record that makes you want to blush.”

Adam Bozzi, spokesman for the Musgrove campaign, said Musgrove has not received any contributions from either of the two during his Senate campaign.

“The money they’re referring to is from five or 10 years ago, maybe even longer. At the time there was no reason to suspect it,” Bozzi said.

A 2003 Biloxi Sun Herald article reported that Scruggs gave Musgrove $57,000 in 1999, while Minor gave Musgrove $112,000. Minor’s most recent contribution to Musgrove was a $4,125 donation for his 2002 gubernatorial campaign.

A federal jury convicted Minor of corruption in 2007, and Scruggs in 2008, well after Musgrove’s 2002 campaign. Scruggs also donated money to Republican campaigns, including those of his brother-in-law, former U.S. Sen Trent Lott, who retired the day before Scruggs was indicted last year..

The funny part of this is the horrible record that Roger Wicker has with giving contracts to contributors. In politics this is known as a revolving door. Donations in, contracts out, round and around we go, yeehaw!

A January Washington Post article revealed that Wicker, last year, obtained a $6 million earmark for a defense contractor, Aurora Flight Science, whose executives were among his top campaign contributors. Wicker’s former chief of staff even represented Aurora concerning the earmarks.

OK, what is REALLY funny is that the Wicker campaign when asked about the validity of the ads had nothing to say other than talk to the NRSC. No defense, nothing.

Ryan Annison, spokesman for the Wicker campaign, said he knew nothing about the ads and directed all calls to the NRSC. “Not only do we have nothing to do with them (the NRSC), but it’s illegal for us to have anything to do with them. We learn about them the same way you do, by watching them on TV,” Annison said.

What is clear is that Mississippians can do better than Roger "PAC-Man" Wicker for Senate. We need Ronnie Musgrove in Washington to fight for Mississippi, not line the pockets of his campaign contributors.

Y'all Politics profiteering on Dickie Scruggs case

I did have respect for Y'all Politics, and can still in the future, but they have crossed a line. This Free Dickie T-Shirt they are peddling smacks of exuberance over seeing a man go to prison. I will never defend Dickie Scruggs for what he did. But I also won't print t-shirts to make money of someone else's misfortune. You don't see "Free Bernie" t-shirts for sale on Cotton Mouth. The damage Dickie did to peoples lives pales in comparison to the P.E. major. Haha and Hehe it up boys, it fits you well.

Here are some tidbits of their shameful post.

They're movin' like sweet potatoes on a roadside stand . . .

There is a "FREE DICKIE" t-shirt that has been created. It was dreamed up on on the back of one of Judge Acker's orders while sipping a Grey Goose and tonic at City Grocery

Those guys should be ashamed of themselves. I doubt they are.

Dickie Scruggs Gets The Maximum Sentence

Dickie Scruggs got the maximum-

5 years

$250k fine

3 months probation upon release.

He has to report to prison in Pensacola, FL on August 4.

Magnolia Report

Scruggs pleads

Dickie Scruggs pleaded guilty this morning of conspiracy to bribe a judge. Sid Backstrom has also pleaded guilty.

Click here to read the Sun Herald's coverage.

Fifty Million Smackers

Da-umn.

A mystery man receiving $50 million from prominent Mississippi attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs earned the money by paying off allies during Scruggs' epic battle with the tobacco industry in the late 1990s, said a former colleague turned government witness.
..........
Scruggs has said a $50 million cut from his fees will go over 20 years to P.L. Blake, a politically connected son of the Mississippi Delta who now lives in Birmingham. Scruggs and Moore have said Blake worked political cloakrooms, bringing his keen political knowledge and connections to their settlement efforts.

I used to think that this was all a Repub DOJ witchhunt and Scruggs was getting railroaded, a la Don Siegelman next door in Bamalammy. I still think it's basically a Repub DOJ witchhunt, but I'm slowly beginning to realize that Dickie is potentially a lot dirtier than I ever would have imagined. After all, how many legitimate enterprises have a bagman?

What does Mr. Blake say he did to earn the money? Glad you asked.

Blake has said he simply clipped newspaper articles, watched C-SPAN and kept Scruggs updated on political maneuverings.

Fifty million bucks to clip newspaper articles and watch C-SPAN?! Nice work if you can get it.

Note to Dickie: Not to critique your business acumen, but if newspaper clippings and C-SPAN monitoring was all you needed, I know a couple of burnouts in Oxford who would do it for Funyuns and beer.

Cheap beer at that.

Family Ties

This is going to get worse before it gets better. So the Sun Herald scored an exclusive interview Monday with Mississippi Senator and local boy dun good Trent Lott about his involvement in the federal bribery case against his brother-in-law, Richard "Dickie" Scruggs. Turns out Trent recently got grilled by the G-Men, but swears he is only a potential witness, not a potential target, of the investigation.

Insert "Trent likes to watch" joke here.

From SunHerald.com

The Justice Department is investigating whether Scruggs tried to land a lifetime appointment to the federal bench for Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Bobby DeLaughter. Scruggs recommended to Lott that he appoint DeLaughter as a U.S. District Court judge, according to an attorney who has pleaded guilty in the case. In exchange, New Albany attorney Joey Langston said, DeLaughter was expected to rule in Scruggs' favor in a Hinds County lawsuit filed against him by another attorney over legal fees.

"I may be called as a witness," Lott said, "but I've been assured that I'm not under investigation, and rightly so because nothing was done to justify that."

Lott said he did talk to DeLaughter about the opening on the bench in early 2006. Because he is a potential government witness, Lott said, he could not offer details about what prompted him to call DeLaughter. But he said that, as a senator, he did receive numerous recommendations for judicial appointments and more than one person suggested DeLaughter, who has denied any wrongdoing in the judicial bribery case.

More is promised in tomorrow's edition.

I'm still trying to figure out who to root for. Or against.

h/t Atrios

Court Decision Highlights Need for Transparency

The Dickie Scruggs story has brought to light an important question for us Mississippians. Can our judicial system be bought? Unlike many, I am going to wait until all the facts come out before I rush to judgment on the Scruggs case. There is a large public outcry related to this case as Mississippians are not comfortable with the idea of our judges accepting money for favorable decisions. I will say that the case reeks of a partisan hit to remove the last elected Democrat (Jim Hood) from office. While the Scruggs case has garnered a lot of attention, there is another more prevalent method of using money to influence the courts of Mississippi.

When the Mississippi Supreme Court rendered their 7-2 decision to wait until November to hold the election for the Senate seat vacated by Trent Lott, it meant one thing. The courts rendered the decision in the best of interest of those who paid for them to get elected. This trend is not isolated to Mississippi, but is occurring nationwide.

“Forbes magazine reports that two years ago in
Mississippi, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce poured over $1 million into a
successful bid to unseat Justice Chuck McRea, who, in their view, was
antibusiness.”

That is just one example of one group pumping major cash into a Mississippi election. It looks like they are at it again according this LATimes article from last month. This article is about Tom Donahue who is the head of the US Chamber of Commerce.

“Reacting to what it sees as a potentially hostile
political climate, Donohue said, the chamber will seek to punish candidates who
target business interests with their rhetoric or policy proposals, including
congressional and state-level candidates.Although Donohue shied away from
precise figures, he indicated that his organization would spend in excess of the
approximately $60 million it spent in the last presidential cycle.”

Big business has infiltrated our court system to the detriment of Mississippians. The judges’ interests lie not with the people of Mississippi, but with big business that put them in office. The citizen’s of Mississippi have a right to know where these huge campaign donations are coming from, especially when they are coming from PAC’s and other political interests located out of state. That seems common sense to me, right? Only the governor of our state does not agree with this basic logic. He believes that government should be shrouded in a cloud of secrecy, and that as Mississippians we do not have the right to know where outside money comes from in our political elections. Barbour vetoed a bill that would have made transparent the funding from these organizations. I have no problem with outside groups like PAC’s becoming involved, just let there be disclosure on where the money is coming from. Our electorate has the right to be informed when making a decision.

As the Sun Herald voiced on Monday, our democracy is reliant on an informed voter base.

“The business of government is a costly enterprise,
and its stockholders, the people of Mississippi, must feed the treasury year
after year to keep the state, counties, towns and cities afloat.
Last year, Mississippi taxpayers ponied up billions to complete their part of the social
contract that keeps democracy of, for, and by the people - and the people's
pocketbook - alive.
But, in what might be considered a not-so-kind twist to
the partnership of people and politicians, those who pass the laws have
constantly chosen to limit the information that is shared with the very people
who elect them and fund their activities.
At every turn, you will discover where state lawmakers have tightened the flow of information about government that the electorate needs to make informed decisions.”

While this issue has been discussed for quite some time, the recent partisan Supreme Court decision made it an entirely relevant discussion again. As Mississippians we deserve to know all relevant information when making a decision in the voting booth. As Mississippians we deserve to know when millions of dollars are being spent by outsiders to influence our elections. As Mississippians we deserve to know where the money is coming from.

Another View of the Scruggs Indictment

When Dickie Scruggs was indicted recently, it made many people happy. Of course, bloggers and traditional journalists are thrilled to have something so dramatic to write about. Democrats and left wing blogs are excited because Scruggs gave a quarter of a million dollars to the Bush campaign - plus he was Republican Senator Trent Lott's brother in law. Republicans and right wing blogs thought the indictment was great because Scruggs was a trial attorney (ie, devil incarnate), he gave quite a bit of money to Democrats, and he was about to have a fundraiser for Hillary at his house.

All in all, this guy looks guilty as hell and seems not to have any friends at all. NOT SO FAST.

No friends? According to the Wall Street Journal, Scruggs and his wife just had a party at his house in Oxford, MS with over 200 friends. One of those friends, Robert Khayat, the chancellor of Ole Miss, said, "The town really did turn out for them." Another friend was the most famous lawyer from Mississippi, John Grisham. Oxford's Mayor was there and said, "People appreciate him for his support of the community, and we're all willing to stand by and support him." Another friend was Richard Howorth, the owner of Square Books, the famous bookstore and literary center of Oxford and maybe Mississippi.

So why are all these people so supportive of someone who looks so guilty? First, we should heed the words of John Grisham. "In a situation like this I’m always reminded how quickly we abandon the presumption of innocence. There’s always such a rush to judgment. " Grisham read the indictment against Scruggs and said, "As a former criminal defense lawyer, I started thinking about how I would defend it and started looking for gaps and holes."

After all the initial buzz of the indictment, those gaps and holes are becoming more prevalent. As Grisham said, "It’s only one side of what happened. There’s a whole lot more to the story. One thing is that there are a lot of recorded statements in the indictment but none from Dickie. There are no allegations that he delivered cash or was part of it."

The biggest argument against Scruggs' guilt is something along the lines that he was too smart to do something so stupid. Or why would a big time trial attorney bribe a judge over a small potatoes fee dispute. Since there doesn't appear to be any concrete evidence against Scruggs, the prosecution will have to answer that to the satisfaction of a jury. And there are no obvious answers.

The lawyer who sued Scruggs, John Jones, has one theory, which is outlined in an article in Fortune Magazine. Jones said he filed the suit in Oxford hoping to shame Scruggs. “I wanted a jury to hear it in Dickie’s backyard," he said. He thinks Scruggs wanted the judge to send the case to arbitration, which is a closed proceeding. But that theory doesn't seem to hold up, because most lawyers think the case would have gone to arbitration anyway. And even Jones admits to being shocked when he learned about the indictment.

The person caught on tape is Timothy Balducci. Those in attendance at the party in Oxford were contemptuous of him. Remember that Oxford is a small town, and everyone knows everyone. One comment kind of sums up their attitude: "This is a clear case of a young man wanting to endear himself to Dickie Scruggs in hopes that he might one day have a chair at his table."

I do feel fairly certain that this is not a political prosecution like the one of Paul Minor, Oliver Diaz, and the two judges. The prosecuting US Attorney in the latter case (in the Southern District of Mississippi) was Dunn Lampton, a political appointee with a serious lack of ethical standards. In the Scruggs case (in the Northern District of Mississippi), the US Attorney is Jim Greenlee, who by all appearances is an ethical and professional attorney.

Crossposted on The Natchez Blog.