UPDATED BELOW
The biggest news from this mornings hearing was Asst US Attorney Bob Norman’s announcement of who his witnesses would be in the other-crime evidence about the attempt to bribe Judge DeLaughter. They would ask Tim Balducci about it, and call Joey Langston and Trent Lott. Their theory was that Scruggs had his brother-in-law Senator Lott call DeLaughter and say his name was in consideration and ask for his resume. The call,
There are reasons to think that the government does not yet have a deal with Ed Peters, by the way. In pre-hearing discussions, Keker told the government he would like to have witnesses available to testify about this, particularly Langston and Peters. The prosecution told Keker that Ed Peters’s lawyer would likely recommend he take the Fifth and decline to testify.
UPDATE: MSMSM coverage:
Clarion-Ledger (Jerry Mitchell)
Daily Journal (staff)
Sun-Herald (AP)
Oxford Eagle (Alyssa Schnugg — click on “Full Story” after I hope you have better luck getting the pic than I did)
I can’t decide which interests me most — the Lott or the Peters news.
I’m not surprised Ed Peters has not reached a deal but based on his pompous persona I am not. Ed thinks, much like Frank Melton, he is untouchable.
Does this mean the Goverment is bringing the Delaughter case into this case.
Yep, mag, or at least they’re sure gonna try.
About 2-3 weeks ago, I was told that Peters told the feds he wanted full immunity. The feds told him that such a deal like that would have to come from Washington, so they would get back with him. When they got back, the word was “no.”
And the DeLaughter fiasco isn’t the only item on the table when it comes to Ed Peters.
Peters may want to crawl over broken glass to take whatever deal he can get at this point.
Tortfeasor, I dearly hope your source has it right. That’s one guy who needs to see scared talkers on all sides of him, with no deal of his own.
And PL Blake…
Can we get a little background info on Peters from you folks who know him or have lived in his area?
Senators are approached all the time about federal judicial appointments. It would not be at all unusual for Scruggs to say, “Trent, I’ve got a friend I’d like for you to consider recommending as a federal judge.” What I CAN”T see him saying is, “Hey, Trent, I’m trying to bribe this state judge back home and I want you to make him a federal judge.” Just doesn’t make sense that Lott would have that knowledge.
Just when did they start tapping Scruggs’s phones? It’s he said she said unless they have something on tape. Rumors have told us the Feds. questioned Lott and he went out and obtained him a lawyer. It’s my take he was given a deal on the Alabama Judge call, but he’s own his own here.
watching #10
I agree but I think what we have to remember is context and motive. If Scruggs’ promised a call to Delaughter through intermediaries in order for favorable actions (sharing orders, etc.) and actively produced that call then there are some issues. For Lott, I think you are right but I have a very hard time believing that Lott didn’t know what was going on in this case – especially given his very close ties to both Scruggs and Wilson.
Here’s the DJournal’s story.
(DJ’s timestamps expressed in CentralT, folo’s in Eastern.)
From the DJ story: Thad Cochran???? Have I not been paying close enough attention? What does he have to do w/ this? Maybe to testify about the process of nominating federal judicial candidates? Does anybody know?
Sailor, I presume they mean to question Cochran about his dealings with Lott over what became the Ozerden nomination — and what else he may know about Lott-DeLaughter.
Where’s jim? Dang, I know he’ll be all over this, but ESPECIALLY whether P.L. Blake was Trentie’s bagman (remember all PLB’s dealings with Trentie’s longtime chief of staff Tommy Anderson, and that apparent flow-through of diverted tobacco fees to Anderson’s and John Sears’ thingie?).
Lemme go look that up for us again . . .
Mmmmmk, that makes some sense, thanks.
Here we go: good ol’ Researcher on Jan. 20.
Rossmiller reports that the defense plan to call DeLaughter, Peters and Lott – talk about three guys who have a lot to lose.
YGM, mslawyer. Those gonna be three joosy cross-examinations — bet we have to eat ‘em over the sink.
Another week goes by w/o the Supremes acting on Keith Shelton’s reinstatement.
DAMN.
I was hoping for better from them today, irate (and Keith, if you’re reading).
As of now I don’t see any of those guys testifying. The Judge has dealt with the motion to dismiss and the motion for other dirty deeds and that’s where their testimony would have relevance.
The two remaining motions, to sever and for change of venue–what could they offer up?
lotus #16…I hopa …
Dealt with the “other dirty deeds”, wc 23? I thought he took that one under advisement. Did we somehow all miss his ruling on it?
Took it under advisement would tell me that he does not intend to have any further evidence presented.
Only as to this hearing, wc. They’re not needed to testify today but — if Biggers rules in this 404(b) “other dirty deeds” evidence — they’ll be required to testify about same at the trial.
Of course that would be true, Lotus, if he allows the other dirty deeds (and I expect that he will).
I may have misunderstood and thought that they were supposedly going to testify at this hearing and that pesky little SBM (or whatever it is) jet took off this morning from Oxford to Pascagoula and is headed back again to Oxford so that too may have led to my thinking that they were preparing to present their testimony today.
Watching Closely (#10)–Sure, Senators are used to getting recommendations. What they don’t normally do is get involved in criminal investigations on behalf of their relatives (Paul Minor’s case, for example, where Trent made calls to prosecutors requesting Dickie not be prosecuted and Lampton gave both Trent and Dickie passes). And how much money did Dickie give to Dubya’s campaign in order to have a friendly ear at the Bush NON-justice Dept?
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001343
For those of you wondering about Scruggs and Lott and how much Lott might have known about the Delaughter bribe, remember that Lott probably brought the tobacco case to Scruggs for a finder’s fee. And, therefore Scruggs gets to push Lott’s buttons without Lott being able to cry foul.
Jerry Mitchell says this in his C/L piece:
“When asked if former U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, Scruggs’ brother-in-law, was involved, Dawson said no.”
I do not think the transcript will bear this out. I don’t think this is what Dawson said.
here’s what the Sun Herald AP story said. I don’t see this as saying the same thing as Mitchell:
“In a follow up interview, Dawson said he’s aware of news reports that Lott is being investigated, but had no direct knowledge of any investigation of the former senator.”
Are hearings scheduled for tomorrow NMC?
it’s done!
there’s been tag teaming in the courtroom with the people reporting here (i’ve relied on other’s notes twice) and even so it’s been exhausting.
here’s what Brumfield said in Tupelo:
“Some news: Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Dawson said he’s not aware of any federal investigation of Lott, but he knows the DOJ’s Public Integrity Division is working on the DeLaughter affair.”
Those three news reports about investigating Lott are really interesting to me, not because of Lott but because they show how grossly unreliable press reports can be. I take Brumfield and the AP to agree that Dawson said he is not aware of investigations of Lott. I take Mitchell to say there is not an investigation of Lott. THOSE ARE VERY DIFFERENT OBSERVATIONS. Right? Am I overreacting?
(I suppose Dawson would be aware if there was an investigation, but still)
It has provided for some confusion to say the least. Your take is that Dawson acknowledged that there is ongoing investigation. Lott has been questioned. The investigation is not over. Is that right?
And… thank you again