Folks reading the blog noted that Joe Biden had “returned” the Scruggs-connected presidential contributions to his presidential campaign by donating like amounts to a charity. This had caused some to speculate that Biden was cleaning up his act preparatory to a possible Vice Presidential bid.
I hope that whoever is vetting this one is asking some hard questions and doing a little (or maybe a lot) of digging around.
Really regular readers of the blog may wonder if a partial return of contributions connected to the bribery case is really coming clean. Recall as early as December, Lotus was posting about the fund raiser for Biden in August of last year (right in the warm up to the actual exchange of cash in the bribery plot…) co-hosted by Tim Balducci and Scruggs. I did not see the money from Balducci (or several others very connected to all that) in the list of money being “returned.” Later on, excerpts of transcripts in which the reception was being planned were part of the exhibits to a motion.
A month later, as the bribery scheme rocks along, Tim Balducci talks (into a federal wire) to Steve Patterson and says "I’ve been on the phone with Biden this mornin’, that would be Jim Biden. I’m not tryin’ to be like Joey." That would be Joe’s brother Jim.
Reliable sources suggest that there are some pretty big payments directed Jim’s way in the tobacco expenses that Scruggs was compelled to give up as a part of the Wilson v. Scruggs litigation.
And recall that when we asked “a dozen questions about Scruggsiana,” number 6 from Lotus was: “How did Joe Biden get so chummy with these Mississippi boys, and how has that worked for him over the years?”
While I’m on the subject of vulnerabilities to opposition research, I’ll ask this: McCain trumpets his role in “taking on big tobacco” (or something like that). I’m curious if anyone’s poked around that much…
Doesn’t it look bad enough that Dickie appears to have done to Zach to protect Blake, without it now being revealed that one of the checks Biden sent back was to Claire? Why? Because of her surname? Why would Dickie bring her into a situation where she has to suffer the indignity of writing a check to what she appears to have thought was a charity, only to have it publicly “sent back”? What am I missing here?
NMC, it sure would be nice to have more eyes on this, wouldn’t it? I’ve been wondering where they were for all these months.
3 dsouth: huh?
Ooof! I haven’t had a chance to wade through all of this but I’m with you Lotus. I sure hope they have vetted this with a fine tooth comb. Speaking for myself, it would be gawd awful if Biden’s the veep choice (and I think he is) and this comes back to bite REAL hard and we’re left calling McCain “Mr. President”.
Sorry, NMC-didn’t look closely at who posted this..but Lotus I agree with you @2 as well.
This is a real problem for Biden. It could be a real problem for McCain. I’m just really interested to see if the legs on the Scruggs story will reach into a national race. If Biden’s the choice, I think it will.
AP reporting that it is Biden!
The money is of course not a one way thing. Here’s some recent (last couple of years) contributions to John McCain:
February 2007
Amy Scruggs 1208 Old Lake Cove $2,300
Zach Scruggs 1208 Old Lake Cove $2,300
Sidney Backstrom $2,300
The contributions don’t bother me — to either McCain or Biden, because they are reported. What concerns me is the unreported. I want to know whether McCain and/or Biden got anything from the tobacco deal and, if so, what and how much.
I agree with you, MSLawyer.
Good points there MSlawyer @ 9.
I have a feeling this potential “issue” will not materialize for anyone on either presidential ticket. I think there are so many big dogs on both sides of the isle caught up in this Dickie Scruggs related influence peddling that the topic will be treated like an unmentionable disease for both parties. As I have opined before, it appears clear to me that Dickie was working all sides of the tobacco litigation, from all angles — the state of MS, Congress, and even the tobacco companies — to get this money making deal done. The state got a bunch of money, the politicians in Congress and at the state level got a bunch of campaign money and other unreported benefits, and the tobacco companies got a resolution of pending claims and a free pass from future suits (with perhaps some insiders lining their pockets as well). And the lawyers involved (officially and unofficially), and unregistered “lobbyists” (or “bag men” or “fixers” or whatever one wants to call them) made off like bandits.
It will take a truly independent press or politician or prosecutor to blow the lid off of this thing —someone who does not care who it hurts or goes down with the ship. Few today fit this description. Greenlee comes close, but he is limited to the context of prosecution. And he may be taken off these matters at some point depending on how things shake down in November.
God speed Jim Greenlee.
AFOTL is right – Greenlee’s got problems if this ticket gets elected. Are there Obama-Biden supporters out there who are bothered by that? Will it impact your vote?
cg12, I’m not a supporter of anybody running for President (or any other office for that matter), but it sure would bother the heck out of me if, for political reasons, an Obama-Biden or a McCain-whoever administration shut down the investigation and prosecution of people who have committed judicial bribery. I think Mr. Greenlee can expect to be replaced as US Attorney, but I hope that the career people in that office will be allowed to follow this mess wherever it leads. Unfortunately, I’m too cynical to believe that will really happen.