folo

folo header image 2
← →

Hood pours gasoline, lights match, sets self on fire

February 18th, 2008 @ 9:04 pm - by NMC · 49 Comments

This is not a politically partisan fight I relish. BUT COME ON GENERAL HOOD!

The Clarion Ledger intervies Jim Hood today in this story. Here’s the key quote:

State Attorney General Jim Hood said today it would be a conflict of interest for his office to file charges against several attorneys involved in a high-profile judicial bribery scandal.

Filing a state case now could interfere with a federal case that is already in the courts, Hood told The Clarion-Ledger at an editorial board meeting.

“I’m too close to them,” he said. “It would be like prosecuting my relatives.”

The first point is arguable. Perhaps he’s too close to former Special Ass’t A.G.s (Langston, Balducci) to prosecute them. I’m not sure. So we’re still going to do law enforcement in Mississippi, right? He’s going to assure there’s some sort of special prosecutor to handle this isn’t he? And how about Scruggs? Is he really too close to enforce the law? But I’ll leave that aside for now because I think we could have a reasonable debate about it.

But he told the Clarion Ledger that prosecuting these guys would be like prosecuting his relatives?!? He needs to think more about whether that mental clutch is engaged or not before he attempts to start the mouth.

Update:

So as not to strain our credulity too much, the Clarion Ledger has put video of this moment online, and you can watch it here.

Here’s some things I noted down:

Critics like you would say if I went in. Say for example Joey Langston who I’m close to, tried death penalty cases against and the standard is can you be fair and impartial. Would it create an appearance of impropriety that would reflect negatively on the profession, and it would.

I’d have a conflict of interest. I’m too close to them. It’d be like prosecuting a relative.

Hat tip to Ya’llPolitics for pointing this out.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed Under: Herald & Examiner

49 Responses so far ↓

  1. MSlawyer says:
    February 18, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Love the title, NMC!

  2. NMC says:
    February 18, 2008 at 9:13 pm

    sorry about the mangled html while I tried to get that post up.

  3. NMC says:
    February 18, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    I know there are people here who won’t want to hear my message, but what is this guy thinking?

    This isn’t about “I’m a Democrat” or “I’m a Republican” or “State Farm is satan incarnate”. This is about “We’ve got an attorney general who can’t find his ass with both hands.” Right? I don’t like this. I want to feel differently!

  4. shaveswithaoccamsrazor says:
    February 18, 2008 at 9:28 pm

    NMC: It’s an absolute embarassment that someone representing the State is so weak in ethical decison making and common sense. I agree it’s not about being D or R, it’s about being able to speak in cogent terms and with any veracity at all. It’s to the point of knowing he’s telling some type of untruth with no more evidence than that which indicates his lips are moving (or his fingers are typing.)

  5. lotus says:
    February 18, 2008 at 9:28 pm

    NMC, remember those “Free Dickie Scruggs!” T-shirts we heard about early on? Well, I’m thinking it’s time for some “Free Jim Hood (from his job)!” ones, too.

  6. shaveswithaoccamsrazor says:
    February 18, 2008 at 9:33 pm

    Lotus…can we get them numbered? Either with their (Scrood) MDOC number or the number order in which we purchased them…

    I want the “Free Jim Hood (from his job), edition #1, serial #0000001. I’m bidding on it whenever it posts on eBay. Keep me posted.

  7. NMC says:
    February 18, 2008 at 9:39 pm

    Here’s where my partisanship comes in, probably: You’d have trouble convincing me that what would happen if we had a Republican appointed replacement wouldn’t be as bad in its own way. The majority opinion in the Senate election case was an embarrassment. I’m in as deep an “I don’t trust either side” as I could possibly be.

    I’m sick about the state of things now.

  8. lotus says:
    February 18, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    Certainly understandable, NMC. Whoever gave Patsy that truck story wants Hood outta there and probably will keep feeding the reporters until it’s done. But why bother when he’s doing such a fine hatchet job on himself?

    Where’s the MS Dem party? Why aren’t they trying to limit this damage, shut him up, and hustle him offstage?

  9. My Thoughts says:
    February 18, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Because he is their only guy. And Scruggs, Langston et al are their bank account.

  10. shaveswithaoccamsrazor says:
    February 18, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    I’d be saying/doing the same things no matter who was representing what party. I lean conservative, but I’ve said since day one, BushII is an idiot when he’s onstage and Jim Hood is an idiot when he’s onstage.

    Political party affiliation is not some type of innoculation against stupidity.

  11. lotus says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:01 pm

    I know, MT, but he’s SLABBING them. They’ll be better off to start from the ground up instead of letting him keep digging them deeper.

    Jesus, somebody somewhere needs to remember the First Rule of Holes.

  12. My Thoughts says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:23 pm

    But Lotus, they have zero organization.

    I mean truly, how bad does it have to be when this guy is your Star?

  13. Researcher says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:26 pm

    The criticism of Hood is way over the top. This is an inartful interview, but there is nothing here that justifies the vitriol.
    The state has no business getting into this investigation at all right now. The US Attorney just gave generous deals to Balducci, Patterson, and Langston to get them to open up about other deals. If the state opened an investigation, it would have to give them full immunity or they would clam up and take the 5th. Either action would be savagely criticized by the same people who criticize Hood now.
    Judge Lackey took this to the US Attorney and the FBI, not the local DA or the AG. He made the decision that this is a federal case, not a state case. Why not ask whether the Bush DOJ will follow the money to Republicans or if this is to be confined only to the lawyers?

  14. tiredlwyr says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:30 pm

    CL has video of Hood from today.

    Here

  15. My Thoughts says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    Researcher, you’re clearly convinced that this is a D v. R thing… “inartful?”

    Oh and by the way folks… Plug in the popcorn maker…. there is video!

  16. somslawyer says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:37 pm

    Lotus, I had to go google “First Rule of Holes.” I’ve been working on a brief to the Supremes all day, so my brain is half-fried. What I found was the Second Rule of Holes: “If you insist on continuing to dig, make sure you stop and ask for directions.”

    Hood’s problem is that no one is around to give him directions now that Dickie and Joey are otherwise occupied. He has some good career prosecutors on his staff who could handle the legal issues. They just can’t give him political advice.

    So, JIM, here are some directions:

    Your best bet right now is a “me too” state indictment following the federal lines; get Langston to plead with concurrent sentencing; then wait for the feds to try their case and lay out the facts as to Scruggs. If the feds win, you can probably extract an Alford plea from Scruggs, again with concurrent sentencing. If the feds lose, you can say with justification that the evidence no longer supports prosecution of Scruggs. Either way, you can’t be criticized for inaction.

    How hard was that?

  17. lotus says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:42 pm

    Shoot, here comes one of my visual migraines, just when things gettin’ good. Fah, see y’all in the AM.

  18. NMC says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    Researcher, you made a very clear statement about why Hood has to step back and await the results of the federal case. He even says that in his own way. What he can’t seem to do is say such a thought simply and clearly, and he keeps wandering off into crazy talk like ‘it would be like prosecuting my relatives.’ Surely you think that’s a crazy thing for him to have said?

  19. somslawyer says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:45 pm

    I should have watched the video before my last post. The interview was much clearer than the article. He knows what to do. He’s even trying to say without saying it that “These guys gave me hundreds of thousands of dollars. If I prosecute them, no matter the outcome, people will criticize my actions.” What he doesn’t say is, “If I prosecute my biggest supporters in the last election, who’s going to finance my next campaign?”

  20. bellesouth says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:48 pm

    NMC, I’d say it’d be hard to say anything correct with such a critical crowd. At least he is a good prosecutor for the state, despite how loud the critics shout, imho.

  21. kingfish says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:52 pm

    What Hood shoud do is announce he is opening up an investigation, appoint a special prosecutor or a DA from some untouched county, then a few days later say he is deferring to feds until their case is done and then will take appropriate action and make it clear that he is going after people as hard as possible regardless of friendships.

    State charges follow federal charges all the time. Michael Vick anyone? How many times is a guy arrested for drugs by the feds and the states throw their charges on top of the feds as along as double jeapordy doesn’t apply? There is a way out for Hood here that allows him to act with honor and respect.

  22. nowdoucit says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:54 pm

    NMC#7 why not put that in a post – take us where we can meet on the “high road” not #13.

  23. NMC says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:56 pm

    If he is a good prosecutor for the state, bellesouth, WHY HAS HE NOT TAGGED STATE FARM?

    There are only two real alternatives: (1) Either he was carrying water for Scruggs and SF did not commit the criminal fraud they are accused of, or (2) He’s let a criminal off the hook by incompetent maneuvering. Both of these alternatives are really bad things in an AG.

    And those are the only alternatives. Show my one tiny smidgen of evidence that suggests something else can be so. You can live in a dream world where someday SF will be called into account, but guess what? If they are not, it is either because Hood and his friends let them off the hook, or because Hood and his friends lied to us about SF’s culpability. But one or the other is true.

  24. Researcher says:
    February 18, 2008 at 10:57 pm

    Yes, it is a dumb way to say it, but people on here are acting as if it is criminal. It isn’t. The criticism is out of proportion to the supposed offense. I expect that from Y’all Politics and Rossmiller, because exaggerated bluster about Hood, Democrats, and trial lawyers is their main purpose.
    What is the offense here? Hood is not giving anyone a get out of jail card. He says a DA would handle the state’s case and that he should stay out of it. That is the correct decision even if the way he said it is clumsy.

  25. tiredlwyr says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    Researcher #13

    Do you really think that Lackey thought this was a federal case or just made a decision to go to the office that he felt would be least politically influenced. Do you think that, perhaps, the self acknowledged relationship that Hood has with Scruggs made Lackey a wee bit hesitant to go to the AG?

  26. Researcher says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:05 pm

    NMC, I have answered #23 previously. State Farm held all the settlements hostage, not just Scruggs, unless Hood dropped the grand jury investigation. A year and a half after losing their homes and possessions, thousands of people were desperate for settlements so they could get on with their lives. State Farm and SKG put out the word on the Coast that Hood was holding up the settlements. He relented, thinking State Farm would honor the deal it made. He also thought the federal government would step up and investigate. That was why he testified in Congress. The mistake was underestimating State Farm’s ability to manipulate the federal courts. I don’t blame him for the Natchez deal because Bramlette was going to rule for State Farm all along.

  27. My Thoughts says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:06 pm

    Researcher, post after post, time after time, you give a seemingly well thought-out comment that may or may not give one pause about how to look at each of these events with Hood. You can’t understand the “out of proportion outrage” over this particular Hood event. You’re attempts to explain away each and every one are admirable, and some even have merit, some more than others. But if you absolutely refuse to look at this as a whole picture kinda thing, then you never will understand the outrage, as it is not in proportion to this one event, but to the snowball of events around this man. Step back from your tree and look at the entire forest. I don’t believe you’ll be outraged, but you must admit that those of us who are have become so after hearing excuse after excuse for every poor judgment (I’m being generous” that unfolds from Hood.

  28. My Thoughts says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:11 pm

    I think I take back my comment. If you’re willing to make the statement that “Bramelette was going to rule for Hood all along,” you’ve just put yourself into the lost cause category.

  29. Researcher says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    If Lackey wanted to put together a full 6-month sting operation, he went to the right place. Only the feds would do that. I was not criticizing or questioning him; only stating that this has been a federal case from the beginning.

  30. tiredlwyr says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    Researcher

    From your post #29 I get the impression that you object to the investigation that occurred. Is my impression incorrect in some way?

  31. Researcher says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    I think it was clear that Bramlette was going to rule that the January 2007 agreement to stop the criminal case was still valid and unconditional.

  32. Researcher says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:28 pm

    TL 30 – No. I don’t object to the investigation. I think that NMC’s 6-part post shows that the FBI took the original over the line but somewhat vague offer by Balducci and fleshed it out into a more substantial case. They laid the corn on the ground and the bad guys took the bait. I’m saying I don’t think a DA would have done that. They probably would have settled for a smaller case without all the phone taps.

  33. My Thoughts says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:29 pm

    Possibly because it was? Of course not, say you, I’m sure. Must be some other, probably Republican, reason.

  34. My Thoughts says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    Can you honestly see a local DA going up against Scruggs, Langston, Keker etc etc… they would never have the evidence that the FBI has garnered and wouldn’t have a chance against these guys…. or would be bribed themselves.

  35. JFP says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:35 pm

    Hood’s mistake = incompetence which let SF off the hook. Hood’s failure to reel them in gave them enough room to create a federal court circus/sideshow.
    Meanwhile, back at the slab.

  36. Researcher says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:38 pm

    MT 34 – That is why I said Lackey took the case to the right place if he wanted to see a full operation that took time and resources. I’m not the one saying the state should start its own investigation while the federal case is ongoing.

  37. Researcher says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:51 pm

    State Farm beat Hood. No question. They had to go to extreme lengths to do it, but they beat him. He traded his criminal case for a settlement that State Farm did not honor. The problem for Coast policyholders who want State Farm brought to justice is that he was the only one putting up a fight. The US Attorneys in MS and LA have done nothing.

  38. shaveswithaoccamsrazor says:
    February 18, 2008 at 11:55 pm

    I guess he wore the plaid shirt so to the “commoners” he would look like one of “ya’ll.” And probably drove his ole pickup truck in case one of the TV stations showed up. Please, Jim, or someone reading this that knows him personally pass this along, “Better to be quiet and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” Have some pride son and just go on home and practice country law….your days in the big time are over.

  39. confounded says:
    February 19, 2008 at 6:03 am

    I agree with researcher on this one. Prosecutors have a duty to recuse where they have a conflict. (consider peters’ prosecution of Shelton on behalf of Patton). DA’s are woefully ill equipped to prosecute white collar crimes and in most cases simply cannot afford to do it.

    Is there a reason federal charges are not sufficient on these facts? Can you guys explain why you want a state prosecution of these cases?

    Why would a prosecution by an ag financed by scruggs/langston before a state judge destroyable by these guys and appealed to a supreme court where judges susceptible to destruction by scruggs/langston be a good thing?

    I think those guys at yall dreamed up this non issue to stir up the masses and apparently its working. Of course, hood is putting it in plain words. He’s not talking to the bar. The bar gets it. He’s trying to put it in terms everyone can understand.

    I just can’t go there with Lange and marsha myself.

  40. lotus says:
    February 19, 2008 at 6:46 am

    confounded and Researcher, my own howling is more politically- than legally-based. I think Hood’s history of blockheaded moves has badly disserved not only the Coast but the Mississippi Democratic Party — and anything that helps y’all become even more a one-party state than you already are will help no one.

    Sometimes, like everyone else, political parties, bar associations, judicial commissions, legislatures, and supreme courts just have to suck it up and take out the trash.

    It’s long past time for ALL your institutions to form this habit, and lame-o Jim Hood is a good place for the MS Dems to start.

  41. confounded says:
    February 19, 2008 at 7:03 am

    Lotus: points well made. If hood would just shut up and do his job he might succeed. Hard to argue against a job well done or a life well lived.

    Stuck between bush, Barbour, hood and lampton, the katrina folks are in a world of hurt.

  42. lotus says:
    February 19, 2008 at 8:13 am

    Aye and alas, confounded. Grrrr.

  43. tiredlwyr says:
    February 19, 2008 at 8:33 am

    Please do not misunderstand me to be howling for state court prosecution immediately or later, or to be part of a lynch mob, or to be anti-Hood. I really do try to stay in contact with reality on a daily basis.

    I find Hood’s interview with the CL to be insulting as an attorney and a citizen. Since the Scruggs case first broke the closeness of Hood with the major players has been much discussed. But not really acknowledged by Hood. It has been something of an elephant in the living room that he seemed to not want to acknowledge. But when he finally does, he uses terms of “family” which raises yet another question of judgment in my mind.

    Simply put, in my way of thinking, if Hood is too close to Scruggs et al to prosecute (which I agree with him by the way) then he is too close to Scruggs et al to make ANY decisions about prosecution, non prosecution, or the timing of prosecution. Unless he has just now become aware of this problem then it should have been acknowledged months ago and SOMEONE, and I don’t care if they are R or D, B or W, M or F, who is unbiased and can make honest decisions begin to make those decisions. It would have done much to help restore some sense of confidence in the legal system as a whole.

    Simply put, if Hood feels that he cannot prosecute then he should withdraw completely rather than actually making all decisions about the Scruggs cases now while reserving the ultimate decision of to prosecute or not for some later date to be made by some unknown person. To me he is trying to jump in the pool but not get wet and then expects the public not to notice.

  44. observer says:
    February 19, 2008 at 9:18 am

    The sad thing is that whether he’s biased or not, the fact is that what is shaping up to be the biggest anti-corruption case in Mississippi history leaves the person who is supposed to be the state’s ranking anti-corruptionlaw enforcement officer, sitting on the sidelines.

    I’ve been in enough of these investigations to know that there are leads his people could be following that the federal agents and prosecutors do not have the time or resources to cover. But, I know they don’t want Hood or his people within two hundred miles of this investigation, because they don’t trust him, and them by association. Hood knows it, too.

    And, the people of Mississippi do deserve better from their chief law officer.

  45. My Thoughts says:
    February 19, 2008 at 9:52 am

    “Why would a prosecution by an ag financed by scruggs/langston before a state judge destroyable by these guys and appealed to a supreme court where judges susceptible to destruction by scruggs/langston be a good thing?”

    My opinion only, but I think there is a cry for some action because this long-suspicious relationship of Hood and this bunch (not all trial lawyers if you include Patterson) is finally being revealed to what many of us has thought for quite some time. Hood has long denied that their hundreds of thousands of dollars have any influence over him whatsoever. Well, we see that is not the case, as he admitted yesterday. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaigns contributions have done exactly what they were intended to do—purchase access and favor with the Attorney General’s office and have a guy in the top spot who won’t touch them or allow them to be touched by anyone in his office. It is frustrating and repulsive to those of us who have claimed that this was the case and had those claims ridiculed as petty, among many less flattering terms. Why do we cry for action? Because we wanted the truth about this to come out. Do you really believe that Scruggs, Langston, Balducci, Patterson, et al… believed passionately in the leadership and legal skills of one Chickasaw county DA to pour their (not very hard-earned) cash into a campaign to elect him? You make the point that it would indeed be a conflict of interest for Hood to pursue them—and I agree—and pose this question: Don’t you think that was the point of their huge donations? Don’t you think this is exactly what was expected by them, donating large sums to have control over this guy and make a relationship that made it impossible for him to pursue them for anything? And if that’s not the case, but it is, Hood must then be thought of as staying silent to purchase THEIR silence. Just shut his mouth and the mouths of everyone in his office about this—don’t encourage any state investigation and not even admit that there has been any wrong-doing except “when pressed.” Why? Hood shuts up in the hopes that they will shut up as well—leave him out of their talks. He’s cowering in a corner at the Sillers building holding his breath.

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but I didn’t wake up one day and decide that Jim Hood was evil incarnate and I would take this on. Nor have I decided that because Jim Hood is of a party that I vote less frequently for (though not always), he’ll be the guy I focus some sort of hatred upon. I don’t know about anyone else, but give me a little bit more credit than that, I would ask.

    Coast victims do indeed deserve better. Mississippi does indeed deserve better. What in the hell could be wrong with people who believe both of those things and actually decide to demand it?

  46. DeltaNative says:
    February 19, 2008 at 10:47 am

    If one was the Attorney General of any state, and one was going to meet with the editorial board of the most widely circulated newspaper in such state (that is an assumption), wouldn’t one wear a suit and tie, and not one’s best lumberjack shirt? It screams: “Look at me, I’m unprofessional!”, and lends little credence to his arguments about creating an appearance of impropriety. If you want to appear to be a man of propriety, put on a d*mn suit!

    However, when one is planning to go dig oneself a hole, one typically doesn’t wear a suit, so maybe I’m wrong.

  47. magnolia says:
    February 19, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Delta Native…Thats not all that went wrong yesterday for the General , word around the capital was his damn tractor wouldn’t crank.

  48. lotus says:
    February 19, 2008 at 11:08 am

    Good one, mag.

  49. DeltaNative says:
    February 22, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Now that the Scruggs Brigade has flown the coop back to the left coast, tails dragging, I thought I take a moment to bring attention back to the General of High Street, and my favorite lumberjack, Jim Hood.

    According to WLBT, General Hood stated regarding his failure to prosecute certain indicted attorneys on state charges:

    “There’s no statutory authority for any kind of special prosecutor,” he says. “We don’t need it, the Federal Government is doing a fine job, I’m satisfied with the job they’re doing. The FBI has all the assets in the world, they have the tools like wiretapping ability that we are asking for here.”

    While most of us were transfixed on Oxford, seems Jackson Jamabalaya took a few minutes, did some legal research and was able to point out some interesting items contained in Mississippi law and jurisprudence that apparently the State’s top cop (1) didn’t know, (2) won’t admit exists or (3) couldn’t find on his own with a pack of bloodhounds. http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2008/02/jim-hood-liar.html
    Whether or not JJ did his homework correctly I don’t know, but I thought it interesting, nonetheless.