BIG OL’ hat-tip to Coast Reader for this one:
Exclusive: Lott says he’s a witness, not target, in federal investigation
By ANITA LEE
… “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.
DeLaughter did issue a ruling in August 2006 that lowered Scruggs’ potential cost in the litigation from $15 million to $1.5 million, court records indicate.
Lott reiterated that he knew nothing about the allegations involving DeLaughter when he resigned two days before Scruggs’ indictment in November. Scruggs has not been charged in the DeLaughter investigation, but was indicted along with four others on charges that involved a $40,000 bribe allegedly paid to North Mississippi Circuit Court Judge, Henry L. Lackey, who reported the overture and helped gather evidence against those charged.
Lott said the federal judge’s opening was always intended to go to an attorney in the southern part of Mississippi because retiring judge David C. Bramlette III is from Natchez.
Bramlette is now on senior status. Lott and Cochran’s practice, according to Cochran’s office, was to discuss potential judges in private, agree on a candidate and send that name to the president. The senators recommended Gulfport attorney Sul Ozerden for the judgeship.
Cochran declined to be interviewed for this story because, his spokesperson said, he has been identified in the media as a potential witness for Scruggs in the case involving Lackey. The spokesperson said Cochran has not been contacted by anyone associated with the case.
I started reading the article and came up with a sarcastic (who me?) remark or two. By the time I finished the article, I figured why waste my daily sarcasm limit on such fluff, but I cant ignore a few things – you know – fish – barrel – smoking gun – just too easy….
Assured (not a target)? Nothing to justify that (investigation)?? knew nothing when he resigned???
Okay…. I got this bridge that I can reallllllly make you a good deal on…
Sorry for the rush-up job on this post, y’all — trying to blog, cook, and figure out WTF the shurf’s chopper is doing buzzing yer neighborhood all at once . . . things get a little stretched.
There is some interesting stuff lurking here– Cochran’s office says, first, that he’s not going to comment because he’s been named as a possible witness, but, second, he’s not been contacted by either side. That’s a little odd.
Second, you’ve got an unequivocal denial by Lott that he was contacted about the investigation prior to resigning. That squarely contradicts substantial rumors I’d heard for some time. There’s two separate and inconsistent lines of rumormongering going through the system right now. In one, Lott is as pure as the driven snow. Nothing done wrong. In the other, he’s in it up to his ears. The biggest single fact we know to balance the scale one way or the other is the timing of his resignation.