With the sentencing date set, Patsy Brumfeld writes in today’s Daily Journal to summarize the state of play in various Scruggs-related cases– 1) The federal prosecution of Scruggs, Balducci, and Patterson; 2) The Jones case (she refers to “feisty Oxford attorney Grady Tollison”; 3) The Wilson v. Scruggs case. She says two things about it: “Because this case was never legally wrapped up, Wilson’s attorneys have hinted strongly they will go back into court for a bigger share,” and “Although Wilson’s attorneys didn’t return phone calls, court-watchers say they want what’s theirs from Scruggs and are strategizing about how to proceed with the case, still alive in Hinds Circuit Court.” They already have gone back to court.
She makes some interesting observations. First, that “The U.S. Department of Justice’s ethics squad reportedly is looking into” Wilson, “as is the FBI on possible racketeering charges.” That there the observation that there is ongoing speculation about what will erupt about Wilson, and when, “probably in the Southern District of the U.S. District Court in Jackson.” Do folks really hear (and think) this is coming up in the Southern District? I’ve seen no sign of that and think otherwise, but am not certain. I’ve more than speculation on it (there seems ongoing action in the Northern District) but no certainty. What do you folks think?
Further, the story notes that on the hot seat is
Former Sen. Trent Lott – Dickie Scruggs’ brother-in-law and then one of Mississippi’s two senators who could have offered DeLaughter’s name to the White House for nomination to the federal bench. While Lott’s people insist that did not happen, others closer to the investigation say they believe otherwise, even though someone else got the judgeship. Lott resigned suddenly two days before Scruggs was indicted, saying he thought it was time to retire, although he was just in the early part of another six-year term.
Perhaps I just buried the lead here. There had been public comments that Lott was off the hot seat. Has Brumfeld heard something newer/more-definitive?
While Lott’s people insist that did not happen, others closer to the investigation say they believe otherwise
I’d always understood that Lott did NOT offer DeLaughter’s name as a suggested nominee, and that this pretty much kept Lott off the hot seat.
If this question of fact could in fact go the other way, then yes, Lott has some ‘splainin’ to do.
Anderson / not be “THAT GUY”, but I had always heard (or maybe read) that Lott did make the phone call…
Maybe I got that from Balucci’s depo….Ihink it was his depo. Or, I’m getting myselft confused…which is entirely probable.
I think there may be some hairsplitting going on (not by Anderson)– that he made the phone call BUT didn’t put DeLaughter’s name on the list (or perhaps put it on the list but didn’t help it go any farther).
I don’t believe the Wilson matter will be handled by the Southern District USA . . . at least I hope not. The allegations of “selective prosecution” in failing to indict Scruggs with Paul Minor would certainly be aired again if the Southern District indicted him now. I also believe the Southern District USA is more prone to feel and respond to political pressure than the Northern District USA. It would just be a cleaner case to let the Northern District proceed, and quite frankly, I think they would do a better job in prosecuting the case.
NMC / Got it…thanks.
What about other indictments – do you think we’ll see other Scruggs et al indictments before the sentencing?
About Lott, I had heard that he made the phone call, and did initially submit Delaughter’s name as part of a normal, informal preliminary process between the two MS senators where they get together to try to agree upon one joint submission. I had heard that Cochran overruled the Delaughter suggestion by Lott and forced Lott to consider other potential submissions before the joint agreement between the two was reached.
IF this is true, then the ultimate fact that Delaughter’s name was never “officially” submitted really doesn’t answer the question about Lott, his intent, his motives, and whether he was involved in the scheme with Scruggs and others. And IF this is not true, and Lott never submitted Delaughter’s name informally or formally during any process, then Lott is probably off the hook.
The thing is that DeLaughter, seen as a conservative judge, was just the sort for Lott to promote, but *not* the sort for Scruggs to ask Lott to choose.
Unless of course Scruggs had an ulterior motive, like a case in front of that judge.
I do hope Lott at least gets interviewed by the feds. Considering how they could lock up Martha Stewart for unsworn statements to federal agents, I think Lott would have to be very, very careful.
Anderson, check out this post and its links . . . I’m betting the Feds have interviewed him, at the very least, twice — and did before we knew of any of this. Word is, it went much better the second time than the first . . .
Silly question: Isn’t it the job of the press to ASK Lott (and Cochran) for answers to these questions? Doesn’t the press then have an obligation to print their answers or their refusals to answer the questions? Do Lott (and Cochran) have some kind of gentlemen’s agreement with the press to keep them off this hot seat, like President Kennedy did about Marilyn Monroe, but President Clinton didn’t about Monica Lewinsky?
Ask a silly question, get “no comment” for an answer, I guess.
Thanx for the link, Lotus. I also see I was being cryptic earlier; I should have quoted & linked the post from Slate’s “Convictions” blawg that I had in mind.
By using perjury the way Elliot Ness used tax evasion, the federal government runs the risk of a backlash. This is especially true when (as in Martha Stewart’s case) the statements at issue were made not during depositions or trials, but rather in informal, almost casual conversations with agents (some of which were never even recorded or transcribed).
I don’t think that even a false statement to a federal agent, not given under oath or expressly under penalty of perjury, should be actionable; but obviously, the law is not written my way.
Sorry guys but I am hearing serious rumors that Grand Jury or actually two in Southern District may already be on this. I am going to leave it at that.