Some questions about the Scruggs cases, for speculation in comments.
By “speculation” I don’t mean retailing rumors. I mean explain where you think is going to occur and why. If you’ve heard a good rumor, it can give you confidence in your informed guess. But that’s what I’m interested in, not rumor mongering.
If you want to post your answer, use the question number so we know what you’re talking about. And explain your answer. “Yes” or “No” is not helpful and won’t be any fun. There’s not promise of an award for the best group of answers, but there may be.
1) Will there be another indictment? If so, when?
2) Will the sentencing in the ongoing cases happen before any new indictments?
3) Will there be RICO charges in the new charges? Why or why not?
3) How many law more law licenses will be on the line in the new indictments?
4) Which defendant in these cases will try to say he’s got a substance abuse problem and should get in one of those programs that gives him extra credit for time in rehab?
Comments are now open. Speculate away.
I can only assume there is hella going on behind the scenes with sealed indictments being dragged over ketchup and grease at cherokees’s.
1) Yes, within 60 days.
2) No.
3) Three.
2. Contrary to my initial thinking, IF I were Dickie-Pooh, I would want to get the sentencing over sooner rather than later, especially since the longer it drags on, the more dirt may be uncovered that could adversely effect matters.
However, IF it’s the maximum (as I would expect), then what difference would it make ?
4) I thought “More” spelled his name with two “o’s.”
1. Yes, by summer’s end.
2. No, part of the original deal (Keker’s smart).
3. Yes, because defendants are guilty as sin.
4. 6, plus Blake’s fishing license (by expiration).
5. None, macho men (and one tough woman) like these ain’t into this brand of girly weakness.
ThirdSouth– Keker has a deal that prevents new charges before the sentencing? I was unaware of that (and am going to go look at the plea agreement)
From the Peanut Gallery:
1. Yes. Scruggs, Peters and DeLaughter will be targets from the Wilson case (Langston is barred from further prosecution by his plea agreement, if I remember correctly). Lott will not be indicted.
2. I originally thought no, but the timeframe for sentencing indicated by Biggers’ comments from the Scruggs plea hearing indicates that things are dragging out, so something’s going on.
The first #3. No, government isn’t going to try and prove it (I think they don’t feel like they have a smoking gun, and they don’t like to lose), but according to the Wilson motion filed to reopen that litigation, Wilson will (if they can).
The second #3. 2. Peters and DeLaughter. They aren’t going after Trent’s, and they’ve already got Langston’s, and the Scruggs (well, not yet, technically).
4. None. If that happens, which from your even asking the question tells me something, it will be at the sentencing hearings which are upcoming but not from any new indictments.
OMTL / 2 – Is that ‘Within 60 Days’ answer a guess, a good guess or a really good guess?
NMC, I don’t think you’ll find it (on paper) in the plea agreement, but I hear it’s part of the deal. Bear in mind that the right to watch the sun set from a Southern backporch, with the sweet tinkling sound of ice in a cocktail glass blending with the chirping of the crickets — well, that’s something you just don’t give up for the ephemeral benefit of “gittin’ it over with.”
Where’d you hear about it? It’s news to me.
I’m with OMTL on new indictments (yes within 60 days).
I’m interested in the thought that sentencing won’t happen before new indictments– I’m dubious about that one for several reasons. But that’s what OMTL and 3rdSouth think.
I’m dubious about RICO charges because they are such a big mess to deal with. So I’d say points toward no, but not a sure thing.
The consensus on law-licenses-on-the-line seems 2-3. I’m going with 3-5.
NMC, does that 3-5 include Trent letting his lapse pursuant to some unwritten wristslap agreement (retaining the PR spin explanation that he doesn’t need it to lobby)? Does it include loss of an Arkansas license for flashdrive draggin’ in a trailer? If the answer to these questions is no, it could explain the difference in your 3-5 (which sounds like 4) and my 6, which is exclusive of Blake’s fishing license going the way of Trent’s law license.
“an Arkansas license for flashdrive draggin’ in a trailer”
???
NMC & 3dS // Who will lose their law license other than Peters and DeLaughter? I submit that they will not touch Trent period.
Trent got his “Sentence” already..I was not there, but a DEAL was struck.
I’m not thinking Trent Lott, 3rd South and DN. I’m thinking there was more than one case down their in Hinds County that the feds are supposed to be mulling over. I missed that you said 6. I really think 3-5, and have trouble picking closer, though I’d sooner say 6 than 2.
Psst, DN 14 and mag 15, whatcha mean? (You can tell good ol’ Aunt lotus, it’s just us here.)
NMC 16 // I forgot about Eaton. Hmmm. My number may be low, but I haven’t been following that one closely . . . .
Flowah 17 // Trent called DeLaughter in connection with Wilson.
3rdsouth:
Lott is still listed in the Miss. Bar Directory online (albeit at his former Senate address).