Now here’s why I consider it a blessing that no trees need die for the sake of publishing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s online rag LegalNewsLine.com.
Around here for the last couple of days, we’ve been reading not only Agent Delaney’s Balducci-interview memo but the in-state coverage of it, so we’re pretty familiar with its contents, right? Well, have you seen one word in that memo to justify this?
JACKSON, Miss. – Worried a state-run criminal investigation might interfere with his payday, indicted trial lawyer Richard “Dickie” Scruggs may have attempted to bribe Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood.
An FBI report released this week says Scruggs told two of his alleged co-conspirators in a judicial bribery scheme to offer Hood $500,000 not to indict State Farm Insurance Cos. on criminal charges regarding Hurricane Katrina claims because Scruggs feared it would put an end to a possible settlement with his Scruggs Katrina Group. …
Sure, we’ve had our moments of bloggy speculation (“I also considered the fact that he offered them $500K to get the job done –if they had to use some of that to convince Hood, fine …but $500K is what you get to get the job done, –get it done without giving any away, good for you”).
That’s one blog-commenter’s theorizing in air — all well and good — but quite a far cry from the lede of what masquerades as a “news story.” Nowhere in all the documentation of U.S. v. Scruggs that we’ve seen to date — certainly not in Agent Delaney’s memo — will you find the least indication that Dickie Scruggs “told” any such thing to Balducci and Patterson or that he intended this $500,000, or any part of it, to end up in Jim Hood’s pocket.
So in the loudest possible terms, “reporter” John O’Brien and LNL.com, I call BULLSHIT.
I misread a few things in the report. It is fixed. Didn’t want to add to any more confusion in this saga.
That’s a start. But unfortunately, John, it’s your employer that zaps your cred, even with no further help from your own bad-hair day.
well if the chamber can’t find anything bad to say about hood, they will make it up.
I cannot find the blog that was posted earlier today about Langston,Balducci and Hood. Can anyone tell me where to find it?
Sorry, felisha. My source asked that I delete it.
That explains why it isn’t on here anymore. I’ve searched everywhere. Thanks for your answer.
I don’t want to get in a big thing about who my employer is because I’d prefer to not make waves with the people who pay me, but just remember that every news organization in the country is a business. I think it is a good thing that we don’t rely on state-run news outlets, personally. If you think we are biased, that’s fine. If you like our site, that’s fine too.
Confounded – I would never make up something negative about Jim Hood. How dumb would I have to be to intentionally publish untrue things about a lawyer with that much power? That’s a career-ending decision.
lotus, was the post that you deleted re worldcom lawsuit?
Jobrien, your employer (read:its employees) knowingly makes up things about elected officials (including judges and attorneys general) ALL THE TIME and has furthermore pledged to spend 60 million this campaign cycle alone to run independent expenditure campaigns (lies and more lies) against folks that don’t haul their water!!! So, “how dumb would I have to be to intentionally publish untrue things…” ???? Not much of a defense!
WATERWALKIN 9, yes, a WorldCom lawsuit.
Too bad you didn’t notify The Google, LNL. I hope this helps them sue your ass for libel:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=richard+scruggs&ie=UTF-8&scoring=n