"These records demonstrate unequivocally that what the plaintiffs have alleged did in fact occur. Mr. Langford has, miraculously, won over five hundred and fifty jackpots at VictoryLand," over the last three years, Mann wrote in the motion.
Langford told The Birmingham News on Tuesday he didn't remember winning multiple jackpots on any given day.
"Did you say 36 jackpots? Thirty-six ... jackpots! That's B.S.," Langford said. "I never won 36 jackpots in one ... night in my life."
Whatever you think of the former Birmingham mayor's incredible luck at the slot electronic bingo machines, or his memory lapse regarding that incredible luck, his accountant was savvy enough to report each and every jackpot to the IRS. The Birmingham News put together a neat bar chart showing Langford's 2008 winnings -- $729,000 in just 24 trips to Victoryland.
Of course, when any public official is "winning" this much money, there is potential for corruption (payoffs) or the appearance of payoffs. Langford's IRS records were subpoenaed in a lawsuit alleging that his wins were rigged, to the detriment of other customers in the gambling establishments.
We've all heard the story of how Al Capone was finally sent to prison for failing to report and pay tax on his illegal income. Langford did report his gambling winnings, but here's the part of the story I find even more incredible than the 555 jackpots: Larry Langford's gambling losses exactly equaled his gambling winnings!
... in 2006, he reported winning and losing $227,673. In 2007, he reported $485,633 in gambling winnings and losses. And in 2008, Langford reported winning and losing $810,601.
Exactly the same, right down to the dollar. What are the odds of that happening?
The City Council has debated paying Alexander's legal fees since last year.
In October, the council received bills totaling $151,000 in attorney fees, an amount that is now part of the $367,000 bill. At that time, council members sought answers on how the city handled payment of attorney fees for officials in past years.
My first problem is that she is requesting the city pay 367k. I am having a hard time doing the math and figuring out this works.
Alexander's lead lawyer was former U.S. Federal Court Judge U.W. Clemon who now works with White Dowd and Arnold. Mark White was recently Alabama Bar President and now represents Victoryland and Milton McGregor. Now granted this law firm probably charges and deserves a good hourly rate based on experience. However, I cannot justify how a city can pay this amount.
I think he doesn't ask tough questions when McCain, Cheney or other Republicans are on his program. I am, however in 100% agreement with his commentary today. Until the issue he discusses changes, we're just putting good bulbs in a bad socket.
A number of former members of the U.S. Senate and House, including former Senators Bill Bradley and Warren Rudman head up YouStreet.org. The organization is working for public financing of federal campaigns to reduce the influence of campaign donations on all the issues this country faces.
YouStreet should be better known, especially in light of recent events that have exposed the corporate underbelly of our campaign financing system.
This discussion about the corruption of Congress is from Wednesday's Morning Joe. Bernstein is on point about the problem and the solution when he says "There ought to be a citizen movement about it, and there has to be some mechanism for public funding of campaigns..."
BTW, Parker Griffith gets a mention though not by name.
Will this ad be persuasive? Does it go too far? How should we attack it? What Republicans in this state have been found guilty of criminal behavior?
A couple of key points:
The U.S. Attorney when Larry Langford went to trial - Joyce Vance - a Democrat
so I don't know about any political points being scored with the latest conviction.
Also - Blount and La Pierre have been gone from the State Party for some time. In fact they have not been around much in the ten or so years I've been involved
So we are now finding out the answers to some of our questions about which members of Congress actually represent We, the People...and which ones represent, Them, the Corporate Masters.
We have seen a Democratic Senator propose a policy that would put people in jail for not buying health insurance and a Democratic President who has taken numerous public beatings from those on the left side of the fence for his inability to ram something through a group of people...and yes, folks, the entendre was intentional.
But most of all, we've been asking ourselves: "why would Democratic Members of Congress who will eventually want us to vote for them vote against something that nearly all voting Democrats are inclined to vote for?"
Today's conversation attempts to answer that question by looking at exactly how money and influence flow through a key politician, Montana's Senator Max Baucus-and in doing so, we examine some ugly political realities that have to be resolved before we can hope to convince certain Members of Congress to vote for what their constituents actually want when it really counts.
This is the reason John Tyson, Jr. narrowly lost in 2006 and likely a big part of the reason he will not be running for Attorney General in 2010.
The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus issued a resolution accusing Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson Jr. of selectively prosecuting blacks, including former Judge Herman Thomas.
The resolution went out over the names of the entire caucus, but some members from Mobile, including Sen. Vivian Davis Figures (D, Mobile) and Rep. Joseph Mitchell (D, Mobile), were not told of the resolution. Rep. Yvonne Kennedy (D, Mobile) was aware of the resolution. A couple of years ago she resigned her position at Bishop State University, largely as a result of one of Tyson's investigations of public corruption.
I say public corruption needs to be investigated wherever it is growing, regardless of party or race. From what I can tell, Tyson has done that.
A hearing from the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was Don Siegelman's last chance to have his convictions overturned short of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Attorneys for Siegelman and Scrushy had asked the full 12-judge court to review the appeal. The court's refusal was posted on its Web site Friday.
Siegelman attorney Vince Kilborn said he believes the Supreme Court would be particularly interested in reviewing key questions: whether prosecutors proved at trial that there was a "quid pro quo" agreement between Siegelman and Scrushy and if U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller erred by not telling jurors such an agreement is required in federal bribery cases.
"This case has drawn national attention. I believe this is a case that will be of interest to the Supreme Court," Kilborn said.
Related: Special prosecutor Nora Dannehy interviewed Karl Rove today. Dannehy is investigating charges that political considerations led to the firing of several U.S. Attorney's during Bush's second term.
The guilty verdict ended McClain's 14-year career in the Alabama Senate.
"It's over," the Midfield Democrat said. "The Senate seat is gone as of the verdict. I no longer want to be referred to as Sen. E.B. McClain."
Gov. Bob Riley will set a special election to fill the seat, said McClain, who also served two terms in the Alabama House of Representatives.
I don't know the ins and outs of this case, but will say that the transfer of large sums of money gives the appearance of impropriety and McClain and Pettagrue obviously failed to convince the jury that their dealings were innocent. Now what does this mean for the upcoming legislative session?
It sounds like McClain is out of the state Senate immediately. That leaves three vacant seats in the senate, since Parker Griffith resigned after election to Congress and Sen. Pat Lindsay recently passed away. Even more importantly, all these vacant seats were held by Democrats in a body where the balance of power was already razor thin. Senate President pro-tem Hinton Mitchem was elected on a 17-18 vote in 2006 with the understanding that Mitchem would step aside this year in favor of Rodger Smitherman. Can the Democratic majority bring some of those rogue Democrats back into the fold for a vote to elect Smitherman President pro-tem? I think they need two out of the three to make it.
The more one learns about McCain's Mavericky pick of Sarah "Not Smarter than a 5th Grader" Palin, the more one has to laugh . . . or cower in fear over.
Here's the latest on that "new, fresh brand of politics" Palin would bring to Washington, traveling along the Bridge to Stupid:
"When Palin needed to sell her house during her last year as Wasilla mayor, she got the city to sign off on a special zoning exception - and did so without keeping a promise to remove a potential fire hazard.
"She gladly accepted gifts from merchants: A free 'awesome facial' she raved about in a thank-you note to a spa. The "absolutely gorgeous flowers" she received from a welding supply store. Even fresh salmon to take home.
"She also stepped in to help friends or neighbors with City Hall dealings. She asked the City Council to add a friend to the list of speakers at a 2002 meeting - and then the friend got up and asked them to give his radio station advertising business.
"That year, records show, she tried to help a neighbor and political contributor fighting City Hall over his small lakeside development. Palin wanted the city to refund some of the man's fees, but the city attorney told the mayor she didn't have the authority. . . ."
For, apparently, no reason. No work has been done by Davis's firm on behalf of Freddie Mac since Davis "stopped drawing a salary." John McCain and his campaign claimed as recently as TWO DAYS AGO that Rick Davis has NOTHING TO DO with Freddie Mac. Nothing. And that he has NEVER lobbied for Freddie Mac.
No, seriously. If this is not THE NUMBER ONE STORY in the media this week, there is something VERY VERY VERY wrong with the media and with us for not MAKING them cover it as the NUMBER ONE STORY.
Because THIS IS F$$$ING HUGE.
Connect the dots: McCain... Rick Davis... Freddie Mac... FINANCIAL APOCALYPSE... Government Bail Out.
Once again the Republican Party shows their ability to lead in all things. This time the GOP secured 14 of the top 20 spots on the CREW's (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) Most Corrupt Members of Congress.
Yes you heard it right, 70% of the most corrupt members of Congress are Republicans. To top it off the GOP also secured 75% of the dishonorable mention section of the CREW list. All in a days work.
Pretty obvious, huh? But in the eyes of the law, they should receive equal treatment. Yesterday tryan pointed out that the standard for conviction appears to be different. Alaska Sen. Stevens (R - Bridge to Nowhere) was not charged with bribery because such a charge "requires proof of a specific quid pro quo" while the Siegelman jury was instructed that "NO SPECIFIC QUID PRO QUO WAS REQUIRED" for a bribery conviction.
Today, we witness more evidence that Ted Stevens is not Don Siegelman, and the two are not equal in the eyes of the law. Ted Stevens is running for reelection and asked that his trial begin soon so as not to interfere with the election. In 2006, Don Siegelman was running for governor and he also wanted his trial to begin well before the primary election in June. One delay led to another, and another and Don Siegelman's trial didn't begin until May 1st.
Siegelman was indicted on October 26, 2005. His trial began about 6 months later and he was convicted June 29, 2006 -- three weeks after the Democratic primary.
Ted Stevens was indicted last Tuesday, July 29 and his trial is set to begin on September 24 -- only 2 months later. Do the wheels of justice turn more quickly if you're a Republican?
Actually, I hope the justice system works as it should for Stevens -- no political delays, no conspiring, just a fair trial with justice at the end of it. That's what every American should expect from our legal system, but what Don Siegelman and too many others have not received.
David Fiderer has written a good piece at Huffington Post about the alleged emails between members of the Siegelman jury, during the trial and during deliberation, and what the Court and prosecutors did when made aware of them. It's well worth the time to read it for yourself.
Anyone who has ever served on a jury knows that the folks in charge are extremely picky about communication with anyone about the case. They tell you not to do it and, as I recall, they threaten you with serious legal consequences if you talk about the case outside of school, so to speak. When the issue of the juror emails was raised back before Don Siegelman was sentenced, I thought there would surely have to be a new trial. But no, Judge Fuller said it was not a problem and had no impact on the outcome, etc., etc. and so forth. As I recall, Siegelman's defense team wasn't even successful in getting the court to order the preservation of the electronic records involved so that the issue could be revisited during the appeal -- which has dragged out an unconscionably long time.
Now, more information has come to light about these emails, which may or may not have been genuine. They involved two jurors, one of whom was the foreman. These were the only two jurors who spoke publicly after the trial.
Mooncat's condensed version is something like this: 1) Paper copies of the purported email exchange were snail-mailed to the defense counsel and a number of other people. 2) Defense counsel raised a ruckus. Unbeknownst to the defense, the government asked Postal Investigators to determine if the paper copies of the emails were genuine or forged. Apparently the Post Office was tasked with this because it was now snail mail, not email. 3) Eventually, the Postal Inspector decided they were forged. 4) This was shared with the Judge and the prosecution but not with the defense. 5) The Judge ruled that everything was hunky dory and proceeded with sentencing Siegelman.
How did they determine that the email's were forged? Did the postal inspector go to the ISP provider and subpoena the records? Apparently not, which makes the whole investigation suspect. And of course the information absolutely should have been shared with the defense so they could have asked these relevant questions at the time. The whole thing has a bad smell.
That's all bad enough and embarassing for the DOJ and the Court, but here's the part that I find really disturbing -- Hendrix and Langer are the two jurors mentioned above. Emphasis mine.
Both dismissed any notion of rifts among jurors, even though the jury itself had twice notified the judge that it was deadlocked. Both insisted that it was simply a matter of needing sufficient time to adequately evaluate each of the charges against each of the four defendants.
Other jurors saw it differently. Here's how one juror, in a sworn affidavit, describes the deadlock vote:
"Five for guilty, five for not guilty, and two undecided. The jurors 100% not guilty were [redacted]. Two jurors had hostile words at each other and at this time, the foreman [Hendrix] slipped a note to the judge without our knowledge and told him that we were deadlock.
[Hendrix's private note said that some on the panel were being "lackadaisical."]
"The judge said that he could keep us until the next 4th of July and we needed to have a unanimous decision. Our whole objective changed at that point after nine days, we felt he applied extreme pressure on us to get us to make a unanimous decision. We all decided to agree with whoever was in charge so we could leave and go home. I told everybody I was through deliberating - do whatever you want to do. Just tell me which way I should vote so I can go home. Thestake of the two men's lives were totally irrelevant at this point for all of us, and we had a more pressing objective in mind - just to leave and go home for good. We did not vote our conviction. We voted based on the pressure applied by the judge."
In a post-trial hearing into allegations of juror misconduct, seven other jurors admitted knowing that Hendrix and Langer had used information not available to the other jurors, which they used to direct the discussion and push the holdouts into voting guilty.
They wanted to go home, so they caved to pressure from the jury foreman. How embarassing for the members of the jury and how embarassing and shameful for our system of justice. Where is Henry Fonda when you need him?
Watch Bill Moyers' interview with investigative journalist Jane Mayer and tell me that the U.S. Justice Department under Bush/Cheney is deserving of our trust. Good grief! The atmosphere in the DOJ is such that they're afraid to even trust each other!
Mayer remembered one top Justice Department lawyer and “very conservative member of this administration” who said that after participating in White House meetings authorizing torture, he believed that “lunatics had taken over the country.”
Mayer said two other top DOJ lawyers had to develop a system of speaking codes because they feared they were being wiretapped while others described an “atmosphere of intimidation,” mainly from Vice President Dick Cheney:
MAYER: There was such an atmosphere of intimidation. … They felt so endangered in some ways that, at one point, two of the top lawyers from the Justice Department developed this system of talking in codes to each other because they thought they might be being wiretapped…by their own government. They felt like they might be kind of weirdly in physical danger. They were actually scared to stand up to Vice President Cheney.
With that level of fear, intimidation and distrust inside the DOJ, how can we as citizens believe them when they say there was no political motive behind the investigation and prosecution of Don Siegelman?
Once the Bush/Cheney crowd is gone -- and there is now an effort to keep political appointees from "burrowing in" to career positions at Justice -- there needs to be a thorough housecleaning coupled with a legal reckoning for those who misused their authority.
Ranking member of the HJC Lamar Smith (a Texas Republican friendly, naturally) kindly sent Rove a list of written questions and Rove just as kindly sent his written answers back. As I said, none of this is under oath. The whole Smith/Rove Q/A exchange is here.
The Readers Digest condensed version is something like this: Rove never communicated, or asked anyone to communicate on his behalf, with Dana Jill Simpson, anyone at the DOJ, anyone in Alabama government and so forth about the Siegelman investigation, prosecution, potential prosecution, sentencing, etc. He also regurgitates the affidavits of Terry Butts, Matt Lembke and Rob Riley, which are fairly worthless unless someone can ask questions about them. He also regurgitates statements by prosecutors, then states that Siegelman has presented no evidence of his (Rove's) involvement and says Simpson is not a credible witness. The really condensed version is "NOT ME!"
By far the largest portion of Rove's statement is given over to attacking Simpson's credibility. Rove must be really worried about Dana Jill Simpson's allegation. I don't believe he mentions the phone records she provided at all.
If all is innocent and conversations with the President are not involved, why doesn't Rove just respond to the subpoena -- like any other citizen would be compelled to do -- and come before the Judiciary Committee, swear on the Bible and say "I knew nothing, I communicated with no one, I conspired with no one and I never had anything to do with that woman?" He could clear his name in an afternoon and put the whole thing to bed. Worried a little about perjury charges, maybe?
I hope they do call Rob Riley, Bill Canary and the rest of the Alabama crew Simpson says were involved. If they can't get Rove, they can at least make sure the mini-Roves take a fall. Bush is sure to pardon Karl anyway, but I'll bet he would let Rob and Bill C. pay their debt to society the old fashioned way, with jail time.
We liveblogged AirAmerica's Sam Seder interviewing former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman last Friday and now video of the full interview is available. The interview starts at about 9:30 into this video. Hat tip to Lindy for the link.
Siegelman makes a strong argument that the House Judiciary Committee should call witnesses who have no pretense to executive privilege, such as Rob Riley and Bill Canary, to get to the bottom of whether there was political meddling in his prosecution by the DoJ. Siegelman talked at some length about Karl Rove's connections to Alabama politics and he clearly does not hold Bush's former political advisor in particularly high esteem. This is from the audience Q and A session at abut 1 hour into the video:
Q: Citing a previous panel discussion on holding the current administration accountable where a questioner argued that Republicans are evil. We just heard your story. ... I don't see how they cannot be evil. Can you elaborate?
Siegelman: I think Karl Rove, like the Roman Emperor Caligula, was bred for evil.
But, I do not condemn the Republican party or all Republicans. There are a lot of Reublicans including Arlen Spectre and Richard Thornburg and Grant Woods and others who've stood up and said, you know, I'm an American first. Yes, I'm a Republican but I'm an American first.
They've got a bad apple in their basket. If I were them I'd be trying to get that thing out of there as fast as I could. Again, I've said it before, if it was bad for America it is going to be a disaster for Republicans in November.
As you probably know, Siegelman was prosecuted by the Bush Justice Department -- the first case was thrown out by the judge, but they soon found other charges to bring against this popular Alabama Democrat. The second trial resulted in a conviction for accepting a bribe -- Siegelman appointed a donor, who had also been appointed by three previous governors, to the CON board -- received a very stiff sentence and was immediately hauled off to prison, where he served 9 months before being released on bond by an appellate court. A Republican attorney has since come forward with allegations that Karl Rove meddled with the Justice Department's prosecution of Siegelman. Rove freely denies these allegations in the media, but has refused to appear before Congress and do the same while under oath. Larisa has a good summary if you need a refresher on the case.
We had an opportunity to visit with Gov. Siegelman for a little while last night. He looks and sounds good, although quite a bit thinner than I remembered. He confirmed that he is doing well -- "much better than a year ago" -- and we all agreed that the last months have been considerably better for Siegelman than for Karl Rove. Maybe there is some justice after all.
Watch for liveblogging of the interview in the comments.
As we've seen, getting Karl Rove to swear to tell the truth is like nailing jello to a wall. 
Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman is in Austin and will be 
