Articles on this Page
- 06/02/16--11:25: _New court document ...
- 06/06/16--10:16: _Members of Riley In...
- 06/07/16--11:56: _Trial of Alabama Ho...
- 06/08/16--11:08: _Did Mike Hubbard pl...
- 06/09/16--09:57: _Here is how Mike Hu...
- 06/11/16--14:56: _Does the conviction...
- 06/12/16--14:03: _Massacre at gay clu...
- 06/13/16--12:21: _Former Speaker Mike...
- 06/14/16--10:30: _Corrupt state judge...
- 06/15/16--09:02: _More indictments ex...
- 06/16/16--10:42: _Former Stanford Uni...
- 06/20/16--10:15: _Amid reports that G...
- 06/21/16--11:34: _Are Birmingham law ...
- 06/22/16--10:50: _What do the Mike Hu...
- 06/23/16--10:01: _Rebekah Caldwell Ma...
- 06/27/16--11:57: _Are rumors of an FB...
- 06/28/16--12:00: _U.S. Supreme Court ...
- 06/29/16--10:10: _If Bob Riley and Mi...
- 06/29/16--12:56: _Don Siegelman, with...
- 06/30/16--10:20: _Could federal bribe...
|Gov. Robert Bentley and Rebekah Caldwell Mason|
The document, filed by Mason's own lawyers in a civil case, provides the most direct evidence yet that Mason is in deep doo-doo. If Mason knows she is under criminal scrutiny, Bentley likely also knows the feds are on his tail--although his lawyers have yet to file a motion similar to the one Mason's lawyers filed in the wrongful-termination lawsuit of former ALEA chief Spencer Collier.
Multiple news outlets, including this one, have reported for more than a month that Bentley, Mason and perhaps other members of the administration are the targets of an investigation led by Georgia federal prosecutor John A. Horn. Now, Mason's lawyers are asking for a stay in the Collier civil case because of the criminal investigation--and the possibility that Mason's testimony in the civil case could incriminate her in the brewing criminal matter.
This has all kinds of potential implications, as attorney Donald Watkins explains on his Facebook page:
Yesterday, attorneys for Rebekah Mason publicly acknowledged in a court filing what our Facebook news team first reported in April 2016 – Rebekah and Governor Robert Bentley are the targets of a federal criminal probe into their racketeering and public corruption activities. What was once a torrid love affair between Bentley and Rebekah is now a game of survival for each lover.
Bentley, 73, and Mason, 44, are expected to be criminally charged by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for using Bentley’s position as governor to execute a wide ranging racketeering conspiracy involving wire and mail fraud, tax fraud, bribery, money laundering, the unauthorized use of the federal National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the Law Enforcement Tactical System (LETS) databases, and related criminal charges.
That is powerful stuff, and one wonders if Mason and Bentley realize how much trouble they could be in. Mason's lawyers seem to understand, and they have provided the most direct evidence yet that the Good Ship Bentley is taking on water and listing badly--with perhaps dire consequences for those on board. Writes Watkins:
Federal investigators are aggressively probing the couple’s racketeering enterprise with an eye toward expediting the initiation of criminal charges against Bentley, Mason, and other co-conspirators. The governor and his accomplices are staring down the barrel of a criminal indictment that is expected to set a record for the number of felony charges in a single federal criminal case. Bentley has been identified as the “kingpin” of the couple’s racketeering enterprise.
Bentley and Mason are well aware of their status as targets of the federal criminal investigation. This is why Mason formally requested a state court in Montgomery to place a hold on a wrongful termination case filed by Spencer Collier, the former head of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA). In March 2016, Collier publicly confirmed the Bentley-Mason “sex for power” affair. Collier has also confirmed that Bentley ordered him to use the NCIC and LETS databases to impermissibly target and harass online journalists Roger Alan Shuler and me, which Collier refused to do.
As you can see from that last sentence, this hits close to home. That a governor allegedly would attempt to use criminal databases to intimidate and harass citizen journalists--Watkins and me--well, it sounds like the mafia has taken over the governor's mansion. I've seen signs that elements of organized crime have infiltrated Alabama government for 15 years or more.
From Bentley's warped perspective, an intimidation campaign probably made sense. After all, his scandal probably would have gone away a long time ago if it weren't for the "non-traditional press," specifically Watkins and me.
Legal Schnauzerbroke the story of the Bentley/Mason affair in a post dated August 31, 2015. Watkins was right there, at the same time, writing a four-part series titled "Forbidden Love – Robert Bentley’s Secret Love Affair," which provided details about the affair and its implications for Alabama government. In a searing piece last September 16, titled "Executive Betrayal – Robert Bentley’s Fleecing of Taxpayers and Donors," Watkins described financial shenanigans that made this much more than a sex scandal.
Bill Britt and Alabama Political Reporter (APR), another Web-based news site, broke key elements of the story, including news that Bentley had targeted Watkins and me--and that the governor apparently had sought medical records on at least one of his critics.
Could Bentley, Mason, and perhaps others, be headed for federal prison? One can never predict what an Alabama jury might decide--if the matter gets that far. But this much seems clear: The Bentley/Mason story, which might expose unimaginable corruption in Alabama government, probably would have fizzled out long ago without the Web press.
The mainstream press, led by al.com, has produced some solid journalism since reports broke in late March of audio and text messages between Bentley and Mason. But until then, al.com spent much of its time attacking me as a blogger with "dubious credibility," whose reporting generated nothing more than "smoke."
Well, we now know that "smoke" was right on target--that it included raging fire, you might say. With the help of Watkins and Britt, our blog has helped bring us to a point where we know the governor and his mistress are aware they are in deep trouble--that an entire administration might soon be crumbling.
Here is what we mean: The trial, to a great extent, revolves around Hubbard's actions after his "job situation" became a cause of grave concern for the Alabama House Speaker. The job situation arose when IMG bought broadcasting rights to Auburn athletics in 2010 and fired Hubbard in the aftermath.
As money problems mounted from the job loss, prosecutors argue, Hubbard began to use his public office for personal gain. That scenario is at the heart of a 23-count indictment, with Hubbard facing two to 20 years in prison if convicted on at least one count.
What is the irony in this? Well, Hubbard is perhaps the most high-profile member of Riley Inc. who is not named Riley. "Riley Inc.," of course, is the term detractors use to reference the political machine built by former Governor Bob Riley and his lawyer children, Rob Riley and Minda Riley Campbell.
Hubbard started desperately trying to raise $1.5 million to make up for his lost IMG income, ignoring state ethics laws that he had helped put into place. The recklessness and desperation Hubbard felt from loss of his job could essentially earn him a life sentence in state prison if he is convicted on at least a majority of the counts.
That is deeply ironic because Riley Inc. specializes in cheating its perceived enemies out of their jobs. My family unit knows about this tactic first hand.
I lost my job at UAB, where I had worked for 20 years, after reporting accurately on this blog about the monstrous cheat job dumped on former Democratic governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. How do I know my reporting on the Siegelman case, done on my own time and with my own resources, cost me my job? Well, a member of UAB's human-resources department admitted to me that I was targeted for that, and I captured the conversation on audiotape. (See video of conversation with Anita Bonasera at the end of this post.)
Who likely would be unhappy with my reporting on the Siegelman case? That would be Bob Riley, Siegelman's chief political foe. Who served as ex oficio president of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, which oversees UAB, at the time of my firing? That would be Bob Riley.
|Rob and Bob Riley|
My wife, Carol, went through a similar experience in 2009 at Infinity Insurance Company. She was fired for allegedly being tardy when she was told to move her start time back to 9:30 a.m.--to assist with the company's large customer base in California, with its two-hour time difference from Alabama--and did exactly as she was told. Drayton Nabors, former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice and prominent member of Riley Inc., just happens to serve on Infinity's board of directors.
Riley Inc.'s "career ruination plan" hardly is limited to Carol and me. I've reported about Russ and Dee Fine, of Birmingham, who were fired from their radio show after reporting about Bob Riley's ties to a Masonic group with a history of racial exclusiveness. I've had probably a dozen or more readers tell me about losing their state jobs, or knowing a friend or family member who lost a state job, apparently because they didn't fall into the Riley political camp.
I still think Hubbard will be acquitted, although evidence presented so far strongly suggests he is guilty on most of the charges. I've seen so many debacles in Alabama courtrooms that it's hard to imagine justice actually being served in one. I can see the jury being dense or inattentive, witnesses being threatened (we already have reports of that), or jurors being paid off. Any of those would result in an acquittal or a mistrial--with either outcome being a major victory for Hubbard.
What if Hubbard is found guilty, and the mask is pulled off Riley Inc. in a way that never has happened before? That still could be the result of the Hubbard trial--and it all would flow from Mike Hubbard's loss of a job.
How ironic would that be?
Consider the testimony of former Governor Bob Riley last Friday and yesterday. Prosecutor Matt Hart repeatedly placed e-mails between Hubbard and Riley on a large screen, providing easy viewing for everyone in the Lee County courtroom. Time and again, the e-mails showed that Riley and Hubbard used "the mantle of the speaker's office" to make money, much of it for Riley and his well-heeled lobbying clients.
It's hard to imagine a more blatant violation of the Alabama Ethics Law. In fact, the e-mails strongly suggest the kind of "quid pro quo" that might entail a violation of federal bribery law. We are left with two glaring questions: (1) Where have the feds been during all of this? and (2) Why hasn't Bob Riley been indicted?
Despite the damning evidence, which all non-sleeping, semi-sentient jurors should have seen, there was Bill Baxley telling us this was all about "friendship"--that Riley was doing this only because he "loves Hubbard like a brother."
We've seen this kind of skulduggery from Baxley before. After all, he represented Jessica Medeiros Garrison, GOP operative and former campaign manager for AG Luther Strange, in her lawsuit claiming that my reports about her extramarital affair with Strange were false and defamatory.
Let's consider some of the stunts Baxley pulled in that one:
* In a pre-suit letter to me, Baxley alleged that I was engaging in "harassing communications" against his client -- I had sent Jessica Garrison two e-mails, seeking interviews or comments about her relationship with Luther Strange and associated issues. As director of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and Strange's former campaign manager, Garrison had been quoted in the press many times. She unquestionably was a newsworthy figure, and likely a public figure under the law. My e-mails were designed to seek her responses to questions on issues of clear public concern. Harassing communications, under Alabama law, can only enter the picture if the communications is "intended to harass or alarm another person." My e-mails to Jessica Garrison didn't come close to reaching that threshold--but Bill Baxley is a con man. He tried to con me into thinking I was going to be investigated, or prosecuted, for a crime I had not remotely committed. Baxley is pulling a similar con game with the Hubbard jury, trying to provide cover for Riley and Hubbard, who engaged in an actual crime.
* In a second pre-suit letter, Baxley accused me of "stalking" his client -- This is another example of Baxley not letting the law get in the way of a dramatic threat. Baxley's second letter ended with this: "Cease stalking my client. Do not contact her again." Now, alleging that someone has engaged in stalking is a serious matter. Stalking is a felony that is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. It's a good idea to know the meaning of the word before throwing it around against someone else. Alabama's stalking statute reads, in part: "A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking." I never followed or harassed Ms. Garrison, I never remotely threatened her, and I never did anything to cause her reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm; I sent her two e-mails asking for interviews or comments on specific subjects. Again, Baxley was pulling a con, very much like the one he's pulling with the Hubbard jury now.
* Baxley conned Dothan blogger Rickey Stokes into writing a defamatory post about me -- Citing two unnamed sources, Stokes criticized my reporting on the Garrison story--calling it "questionable," and saying I had made up "something that wasn't true." A few days later, in a public forum, Stokes admitted that his source was Bill Baxley and that Baxley had not disclosed his representation of Jessica Garrison. Like we said, Baxley is a con artist--and Rikey Stokes fell for his tricks.
|Bob Riley, on the stand in Mike Hubbard trial|
As for the Hubbard trial, how illuminating was evidence presented while Bob Riley was on the stand? Consider this report from Bill Britt, of Alabama Political Reporter:
Emails entered into evidence during former Gov. Bob Riley’s testimony on day nine, was a matrix of deals that benefited both Riley and Hubbard. Lead Prosecutor, Matt Hart, in email after email revealed a disturbing pattern where Riley would ask something from Hubbard, receive it, and vice versa, in a quid pro quo style transaction.
Under the Ethics Laws that Hubbard and Riley championed and passed, just one such action would result in a felony charge. These two men repeated the scheme numerous times.
Want more specifics? Here they are:
In emails concerning the Paris Air Show, the prosecution displayed how Riley arranged for Hubbard and his daughter, Minda Riley Campbell, to meet his billionaire client, Singapore Industries, at their palatial chalet at the air show. He expressed to his client that Hubbard was there as Speaker of the House, and that he would be speaking on behalf of the State, to show appreciation for the company’s investment in Alabama. In return, emails show that Riley solicited partners at Singapore Industries to visit the Abbeville site, to aid Hubbard with his SEAGD business.
Other emails showed that Hubbard passed legislation that provided tax credits on shipping material for Singapore Industries in Mobile. He wrote to Riley saying his legal advisor, Jason Isbell, had placed the bill in the jacket, and that Riley’s client would be pleased. He even attached the language to the bill which Riley forwarded to the President of Singapore Industries. The bill Riley wanted for his client was passed by the State Legislature.
What became apparent, is that Riley and Hubbard were working in concert to aide each other financially. This was further evidenced by Hubbard’s weekly meetings with BCA’s chief lobbyist, Billy Canary.
If you feel the need to take an industrial-strength shower after reading that, join the crowd. This is politics at its most greed-driven, back-scratching low point--at its most criminal. But Bill Baxley will continue telling the public, and jurors, that this is all good fun among friends--making the crimes exempt from Alabama's ethics law.
Folks have fallen for Baxley's con games before. Will it happen again?
We don't have an answer to that question at the moment. But if such a plan was in the making--and it still could be in place right now--it points to criminality of a shockingly vile nature. It points to the possibility that Alabama's "justice" system is for sale--especially for those who are connected and moneyed enough to afford favors.
Joe Miller, who teaches nonfiction and journalism at Columbus State University, has written a four-part series at TNR that provides a splendid overview of Alabama scandals involving Hubbard, Moore, and Gov. Robert Bentley.
In part four of the series, Miller gives Legal Schnauzer credit for breaking the story of Bentley's affair with advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason--a fact the Alabama mainstream media (MSM) consistently ignores. Miller also notes the efforts of attorney Donald Watkins and I to expose the Bentley scandal in summer/fall 2015, long before the MSM was willing to take a serious look.
On the down side, Miller misspelled my name as "Robert Schuler" in the first version of his article. But he is trying to get that corrected, and all in all, I have to call myself a big Joe Miller fan. Also, I think TNR is doing a major public service by showing what can happen when so-called conservative interests and their corporate supporters take over all three branches of state government and have unfettered access to the public piggy bank.
The revelations about Hubbard and Moore can be found in part three of the TNR series. The issue arose during testimony about plans to give Alabama Pharmacy Cooperative Inc. (APCI), a client for Hubbard and several Republican lobbyists, a monopoly on the state's Medicaid prescriptions. Lobbyists Ferrell Patrick and John Ross were pushing for the plan in spring 2013 and scheduled a meeting with the Speaker and others to discuss it. From Miller's TNR report:
Patrick told them that he and Ross represented American Pharmacy Cooperative Inc., or APCI, an Alabama-based company that represents independent pharmacies across the state and country. Though APCI and its affiliates opposed the idea of privatizing the prescription drug program, Patrick said, they would change their position if they could receive the contract to run it.
The company had no experience running such a program, and Patrick told Hubbard and the others that they wouldn’t be able to save $20 million a year, which is what the governor’s office was hoping for with their plan. But they could probably save $10 million.
According to court testimony, everyone in the meeting was in favor of the plan. But Hubbard had multiple reasons for favoring it. Writes Miller:
Hubbard had his own reasons for saving $10 million that went beyond closing holes in the budget. According to testimony, he was hoping to carve off $10 million that he could shift to the state’s court system, which was run by Roy Moore. (Moore is currently under suspension for ordering court officials statewide to disobey a mandate from the federal courts to grant marriage license to same-sex couples.) Hubbard—who at the time was the subject of a grand jury investigation—reportedly believed that if he could help Moore, Moore might be of help to him at some point in the future. The parties involved were on board with this plan, too.
So Hubbard, and his "conservative" brethren in the meeting, were OK with shifting money to Roy Moore--for no apparent reason than that Moore possibly could do a favor for Hubbard in the future. With the Speaker under a state grand-jury investigation, it seems pretty clear what that hoped-for favor might be.
Did the $10 million actually make it to the court system that Roy Moore controls? Did it come with a "quid pro quo" attached?
Just one more reason that the Hubbard trial, regardless of its outcome, should not be an ending. It should be just the beginning of an effort, led by federal investigators, to unearth the unspeakable graft that has turned Alabama government into a sewer.
The feds reportedly are already targeting Bentley and Mason, so perhaps they can add Hubbard, Moore, and former governor Bob Riley to their list. Joe Miller focuses on the Bentley scandal in part four of his TNR series, titled "The Most Shameless Sex Scandal in American Politics." It was published on Monday:
Mrs. Bentley, for her part, tried to keep up appearances. She tweeted on July 24, the couple’s anniversary: “God has blessed us w/ 50 years of marriage. I thank him for health, family, faith and most of all His love and grace.” But a month later, she’d had enough. On August 28, she filed for divorce.
Almost immediately, the first reports of the governor’s affair appeared, on the blog Legal Schnauzer and in a series of Facebook posts penned by Birmingham attorney Donald Watkins. Bentley vehemently denied the allegations and went after Watkins and Legal Schnauzer author Roger Shuler by having his staff investigate them through state and federal criminal databases, according to Alabama Political Reporter.
But the state’s legitimate news agencies, while acknowledging the “rumors,” held off on the story, and Bentley and Mason went on having a good time. Throughout the fall and early winter of 2015, the two traveled by state plane to Eva, Jacksonville, Decatur, Haleyville, Mobile, Fort Payne, Andalusia, and Birmingham. They took two trips to Gulf Shores, and one to Las Vegas, an Al.com investigation later revealed.
As for the Hubbard scandal, consider this: If Roy Moore, in fact, sold his office to Mike Hubbard. that makes Moore's problems related to gay marriage seem quaint by comparison.
Could the strategy work in the long run anyway? A seasoned Alabama attorney says it is extremely unlikely, especially since Hubbard has opened himself up to cross examination from prosecutor Matt Hart. Attorney Donald Watkins says putting Hubbard on the stand is like throwing a desperation "Hail, Mary" pass at the end of a football game--and Hart is likely to bat it down.
According to a report from Bill Britt at Alabama Political Reporter (APR), the defense's plan was to call former governor Bob Riley back to the stand, along with Kitty Brown, a partner at the White Arnold Dowd firm that originally represented Hubbard.
Riley, under questioning from defense counsel Bill Baxley, was to discuss his opinion of the Alabama Ethics Law. But Judge Walker wasn't having it. At least three times, the defense tried to get Riley's testimony about the ethics law; three times, the prosecution objected; and three times, Walker sustained the objection. Ultimately, Riley left the stand without providing much help to the defense--at least on the subject of the ethics law.
Baxley then tried to introduce a memo from Brown, allegedly showing that Hubbard had informed the Alabama Ethics Commission of his contract with American Pharmacy Cooperative Inc. (APCI) before voting on a budget that would have given his client a monopoly on Medicaid prescriptions. The memo, however, did not include the date when Hubbard allegedly first contacted ethics commissioner Jim Sumner. With the jury in recess, Walker denied the defense's request to enter the memo and Brown's testimony.
Where did that leave the defense? Here is how Britt reports it:
In his testimony, Sumner stated Hubbard called him after the vote and said he wanted to speak to him. He thought his Chief of Staff, Josh Blades, may have done something wrong. Judge Walker denied the Defense’s request to introduce the memo and Brown’s testimony.
Apparently, over the lunch break, Hubbard’s defense team had filed a motion to have Riley recalled to the witness stand, to give his opinion on the Ethics Laws. Eventually, Judge Walker ruled that he would not allow Riley back on the stand.
The reason that Hubbard took the stand after lunch? Judge Walker did not allow Baxley’s first two witnesses, Brown and Riley.
With the jury reconvened, Baxley attempted, yet again, to have Riley called as a witness. The Judge told Baxley to call his next witness, which was Hubbard.
Was it a wise move to put Hubbard on the stand? No, says Donald Watkins, who called the move "unthinkable":
I have been a litigator for 43 years. During my career, I have handled scores of high profile, complex criminal cases. I hold the record in American jurisprudence for winning the largest number of criminal counts against a single defendant in the federal criminal case of former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. In November 2003, Scrushy was indicted on 85 counts of conspiracy, fraud and money laundering. He faced up to 650 years in prison. On June 28, 2005, Scrushy won an acquittal on the 36 counts that actually made it to a jury trial.
Hubbard’s decision to take the witness stand in his own case shocked me. As a defense attorney, I have never put the weight of winning a criminal case on the shoulders of the accused. Winning the case was my job, and I did it well. All of my clients in criminal cases walked out of the courtroom as free men and women.
What is the key downside to all of this for Hubbard? Watkins explains:
Testifying in his own defense is a high-risk move for Hubbard. He faces up to 20 years in prison on each of his 23 counts. Matt Hart, the lead prosecutor in this case, is a seasoned pit bull with plenty of courtroom experience. Hubbard’s decision to take the witness stand has placed him squarely inside the Lee County backyard of a pit bull that has prepared for this defensive play for nearly two years.
Now I understand why Hubbard turned down an attractive plea deal that had been worked out for him by some of his friends. Hubbard actually thinks he can talk his way out of a guilty verdict on all 23 counts. The chances of this happening are slim to none.
Does that mean Hubbard is toast? Not in my view. We've already had reports of witnesses possibly being threatened. I have no doubt Hubbard's well-heeled "friends" have the resources to buy off a juror or two, resulting in acquittals or, at worst, a mistrial. Heck, some jurors might eyeball Susan Hubbard, the Speaker's comely wife, and say, "I don't want to throw her husband in prison, no matter how big a crook he is." (Have you noticed that, in all photos of Hubbard taken outside the courtroom, Susan Hubbard always is in the frame, right next to Hubby? What message is being sent? "She's white, she's blonde, she's easy on the eyes, she's produced two white kids, we mustn't burden her by throwing her louse of a husband in the slammer.")
Assuming the case isn't rigged, things don't look good for Hubbard, Watkins says:
I do not believe Hubbard’s lawyers recommended that he take the witness stand in his own defense. No highly skilled criminal defense attorney would willingly allow a vulnerable politician to square off against a known pit bull prosecutor in this “let’s clean up public corruption” ethics reform environment. I think Mike Hubbard made this ill-advised tactical decision all by himself. Hubbard apparently felt the need to “lawyer” his way out of this mess by testifying in his own defense.
This unexpected move signals to me that Hubbard’s trial is not going well for the defense. Hubbard’s act of taking the witness stand is the courtroom equivalent of a “Hail Mary” pass in the waning days of his trial.
There is very little upside for Hubbard in testifying in his own defense. The trail of damning emails and the documented flow of millions of dollars to Hubbard from an unsavory den of so-called “friends” (i.e., the new definition for “influence peddlers”) have already killed him.
Before you searching always remember to change your IP adress to not be followed!
PROTECT YOURSELF & SUPPORT US! Purchase a VPN Today!
|Mike Hubbard holds his head in despair|
as he waits to pay bail at the Lee County
Jail last night in Opelika.
It's little wonder that Hubbard and others in the GOP took on such arrogance. Since Karl Rove, Bill Canary, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined hands to steal . . . I mean, buy . . . the 1994 Alabama chief justice race for Perry Hooper, pro-business forces have taken over state courts across the South--touting "tort reform" as a way to attack large verdicts for plaintiffs, which came to entail "jackpot justice." If you tried to seek justice in federal courts, you would find benches stuffed with Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II appointees.
In short, both state and federal courts were stacked in the GOP's favor. Republican politicos knew they could step way over the boundary into unlawful territory and likely never be investigated, much less prosecuted. If they did somehow get indicted, they probably could lie under oath enough to escape punishment. After all, they were likely to go before GOP judges and majority-white juries who reflexively tend to pull levers for Republicans at election time.
A jury in Lee County, Alabama--with the help of Judge Jakob Walker's stern hand--might have signaled last night that era is starting to crumble by convicting Hubbard on 12 of 23 charges that he violated state ethics laws. The convictions automatically remove Hubbard from office; he was convicted on counts 5-6, 10, 11-14, 16-19, and 23. (See indictment at the end of this post.)
Hubbard took the stand in his own defense, but if he thought he could get away with spinning an elaborate web of lies, the Lee County jury had other ideas. In fact, the last day of testimony might have been the most devastating for Hubbard.
In March 2014, Hubbard had signed a proffer, which is an agreement between prosecutors and an individual about his knowledge of possible crimes. The individual's words are not to be used against him at trial, but if his future testimony contradicts information in the proffer, the prosecution can use that to impeach him.
Hubbard made numerous statements on the stand that differed with what he had agreed to in the proffer. So prosecutor Matt Hart received permission from the court to use the proffer in an effort to impeach Hubbard. Here is how Bill Britt, of Alabama Political Reporter, described part of that process:
The trial began with Lead Prosecutor, Matt Hart, cross examining Hubbard, using a proffer Hubbard signed in March, 2014. The Prosecution was able to impeach Hubbard on several points in his testimony before the court. During the trial, evidence showed Josh Blades had initiated the calls to help Bobby Abrams’ company with a much needed patent, and it was Blades who did most of the work…on State time. However, in 2014, Hubbard told Hart and others in a sworn statement, that only he had made calls concerning the patent.
In his proffer, Hubbard stated that he knew about the language that was inserted in the Medicaid portion of the General Fund Budget, that benefited his client APCI. But, in court this week, he said he didn’t know anything about it.
In short, Hubbard got caught lying under oath about Robert Abrams and his company, CV Holdings, and about a deal that would have given APCI a monopoly on Medicaid prescriptions in Alabama. If you look at the jury verdict, Hubbard was found guilty on Counts 5-6 (regarding APCI) and Counts 11-14 (regarding CV Holdings).
We don't know what went on behind the closed doors of the jury room. But we do know that six of the 12 guilty verdicts came on counts where Hubbard was proven to have lied under oath--either in his proffer or in his testimony before the jury.
Many Republican politicians have risen to power in the South on giant truckloads of horse feces. They claim to be Christian, while their behavior suggests they have never opened a Bible. They claim to be "pro family" while cheating on their spouses. They claim to support the middle class, while their votes almost always favor the business class. They claim to be "strict constructionists," while their actions show zero respect for the rule of law.
Mike Hubbard dumped copious amounts of horse feces in the Lee County Courthouse--and there is little doubt his corporate and political "friends" did also--but jurors from Hubbard's home county were not falling for it.
In the end, Hubbard walked away smelling like manure--while the jurors and Judge Walker helped usher in a scent that smelled (at least a little) like justice might be coming to the South.
|Assisting the wounded in Orlando.|
My experience of learning about the Pulse shooting probably was like that of many Americans. I saw a bulletin late last night before turning into bed. I've come so conditioned to reading about mass shootings that I didn't think much about the ramifications. My main thought was something like this: "That's curious that a shooter would target a gay night club. I wonder if this was some kind of protest against U.S. federal-court decisions legalizing gay marriage. Let's hope someone was able to subdue the shooter before he could do too much damage."
Apparently, I was off on all counts. Suspect Omar Mateen had pledged allegiance to ISIS and apparently was disgusted at the sight of two men kissing in Miami recently. The incident is being investigated as an act of domestic terrorism. Unfortunately, I was way off about the damage the shooter was able to do. When I awoke this morning to read updated accounts, I was stunned at the number of casualties, that the shooting had become an act of historic and horrible proportions.
How could one shooter have inflicted so much damage? And then, this passage in a CNN report stopped me cold:
Mateen carried an assault rifle and a pistol into the packed Pulse club about 2 a.m. Friday and started shooting, killing 50 people and wounding at least 53, police said. After a standoff of about three hours, police crashed into the building with an armored vehicle and killed Mateen.
My mind immediately went back to September 9, 2015, when deputies here in Springfield, Missouri (Greene County) conducted an unlawful eviction that resulted in my wife, Carol, having her left arm broken so severely that it required trauma surgery. The eviction was unlawful because we had timely filed an appeal of a trial-court ruling, and under Missouri law, that places an automatic stay on execution of an eviction order.
I had provided notice to every attorney involved in the case--including my brother, David Shuler--and hoped they had the good sense to follow black-letter law. But I was dense to think that would happen.
A swarm of deputies--at least six to 10, including Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott--burst through the front door of our apartment, and while I was sitting in a chair with my hands folded, I experienced a feeling I never thought would come my way. An officer--we now know his name is Scott Harrison--was pointing an assault rifle right between my eyes. Carol had been trying to look out the peephole in our door to see what the commotion was about, when officers threw open the door and slammed her face first against the wall. I suspect she suffered a concussion then, or later when the officer who broke her arm slammed her to the ground outside.
We've never been sure how many guns were on the scene that day. I was so fixated on the assault rifle pointed at me that I could not pay much attention to anything else, but I'm pretty sure five or six other officers were brandishing handguns. Carol thinks she saw an officer with a second assault weapon once she was handcuffed and taken outside.
Even though I've had an assault rifle pointed at me, I've never been able to imagine the destructive force such a weapon can unleash. That one man using the same kinds of weapons employed against us could kill or wound more than 100 people . . . well, it takes your breath away. It also makes you wonder about the management of a sheriff's office that would allow at least one, and maybe two, assault rifles to be used in an eviction that could not be lawfully carried out in the first place.
In the coming days, we will have the usual rhetoric that spews forth every time we have a mass shooting in this country. President Obama will try to comfort and talk sense to the American people. (See video at the end of this post.) Meanwhile, NRA types will claim the whole thing could have been avoided if several individuals in the gay nightclub had been armed. "Leaders" in our Republican-controlled Congress will do nothing. And within two or three months--maybe less time--we will have another mass shooting, perhaps one that will break Orlando's grisly record.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Schnauzer and I can only wonder what it would have been like if one or two of the deputies last September had an itchy finger--or mistakenly pulled a trigger that would have unleashed a hail of bullets in our direction. I guess we would have looked like Sonny Corleone (James Caan) in the famous toll-bridge scene from The Godfather. (See video below.)
That's a horrifying thought. But we know from first-hand experience that it's part of post-modern American life. We grieve for the victims in Orlando, knowing there will be many more victims to come.
|Mike Hubbard, at the Lee County Jail|
last Friday night.
All three have been brought down in the past year by stories broken and largely driven by the non-traditional press. Hubbard, convicted last Friday night on 12 of 23 charges that he violated state ethics laws, might be the largest fish the Web press has hooked so far. After all, many considered him the most powerful political figure in the state, the one who led a Republican takeover of the Alabama Legislature for the first time in more than a century. But Hubbard probably will not be the last to take the fall. Governor Robert Bentley and a number of his associates already appear to be forming a line, one that has drawn orchestrated scrutiny from federal investigators.
Alabamians have many lessons to learn from the Hubbard episode, but the main one might be this: If you wait around for the mainstream media (MSM) to break, report, and analyze conservative corruption . . . well, you might have a long wait. Pro-business conservatives--like Hubbard and his friends at Riley Inc.--bought, neutered, or threatened the corporate press a long time ago. That has left it to a small band of intrepid journalists to take the lead via the Internet.
I'm pleased to know that Legal Schnauzer and I are counted among their number. So is attorney Donald Watkins, whose Facebook page should be must reading for all Alabamians who care about public affairs. Watkins and I largely are responsible for exposing and helping to bring down Fuller and Mason--and we are the ones who have caused Bentley to be teetering on the edge of a cliff, in a high wind.
But there is no doubt who did the heavy lifting on the Hubbard story. Watkins presented important reporting and analysis, especially as the case drew closer to trial; he provided an experienced lawyer's insights to the criminal-trial process, and that was an invaluable contribution for those who wished to understand the complex details surrounding a high-profile, white-collar case. You might call me a spear carrier in the Hubbard drama, taking certain key issues and trying to analyze them in a way that would enhance our readers' grasp of corruption that largely was funded on the taxpayers' time--and dime.
The journalistic ringleader of Hubbard's downfall, without question, was Bill Britt and his staff at Alabama Political Reporter (APR). How many Hubbard-related stories did APR produce, many of them containing critical, on-target details that received little or no attention in the MSM? I'm not sure, but it has to be at least several hundred. Would there have even been a Hubbard indictment without APR? I doubt it. Is there a prize for the kind of old-style investigative reporting that makes a difference in citizens' lives? I don't know, but if there is, APR should receive one--stat.
No one knows better than me the dangers that come with practicing real journalism that targets powerful figures who don't much care for being targeted. Riley Inc. thugs ruined my 20-year career as an editor at UAB. I was beaten up and doused with pepper spray inside my own home and then dragged for a five-month stay in the Shelby County Jail--all based on a supposed warrant (for alleged civil contempt, involving no crime) that I've never seen and is prohibited by more than 200 years of First Amendment law. My wife and I saw our home of 25 years stolen out from under us, in a foreclosure that almost certainly was unlawful. And I saw my wife's left arm shattered during an unlawful eviction in Springfield, Missouri, carried out by law-enforcement thugs here who probably have connections to political thugs in Alabama.
Bill Britt and his wife, Susan, know what that kind of thing is like. Hubbard and his associates reportedly went after APR's advertisers. Riley Inc. lackey Bryan Taylor filed a defamation lawsuit against the Britts that was so thin it should have cost Taylor his bar card. Britt has written several times about threats directed at him and his Web site.
But APR refused to be cowed into silence, and Bill Britt provided important insight in a column published today, titled "Guilty: The System Worked." A guilty verdict was not necessary to validate APR's top-notch reporting. But I'm sure it's nice to see all that work lead to a difference the public can see and feel. From Bill Britt's column:
Hubbard’s consuming quest for power, control and riches were his undoing. His wrong doing was on display for all to see, but he, with the aid of the Rileys, Billy Canary and others, wielded such power few dared stand against the machine they had constructed.
From the witness stand in the Lee County Justice Center, the constant refrain was that Hubbard was talented and intelligent. But, intelligence without conscience, and talent without morals, is a toxic elixir that induces the worst forms of arrogance and hubris. Of the hundreds of email exchanges between Hubbard and his enablers, there was never a mention of what would benefit the people of our State. In every instance, it was about how they could use their positions and privilege to reward themselves.
Hubbard said he was a disciple of Bob Riley, the former governor’s daughter, Minda Riley Campbell, said, “Aren’t we all.”
Let' all pause for a moment so we can vomit. Riley's children, Rob and Minda, tend to have that effect on people. That's why we call them Uday and Qusay, in honor of Sadam Hussein's diabolical, evil, and worthless sons. Here's more from Bill Britt:
The “Gospel of Greed” was the scripture most revered by Hubbard and his clan. Riley loved him like a son, but he never helped him, he only used him. Others claimed to love Hubbard like a brother, but it was an affection born out of politics, and politics is most simply explained as who gets what. For Hubbard’s adopted family, it was all about how they could use government for their own personal gain.
The villains in this most sordid of dramas were clearly identified one by one as they took the stand in Hubbard’s defense. The lies, half-truths and failed or altered memories, revealed each witness’s true complicity in Hubbard’s crimes. Will Brooke, and Rob Burton were his friends. That is why they gave him $150,000 for his failing printing business. Yet, Brooke confessed their real motive when he said he didn’t want Hubbard to have to work for a company that might compromise his position as Speaker. But that is exactly what they did. What Brooke should have admitted, at least to himself, was he and his followers at the Business Council of Alabama (BCA) were purchasing the Speaker, so no one else could. Jimmy Rane appeared to be Hubbard’s only true friend, but even his $150,000 was a crime.
And what are we to make of former State Health Officer, Dr. Don Williamson, who lied to protect Hubbard? Why would a man with his sterling reputation surrender it so shamelessly to help Hubbard? Whatever Williamson hoped to gain from his altered testimony, the damage to his reputation and credibility was far greater.
Many reputations have taken a hit in Alabama over recent months; Hubbard, Mason, and Fuller all have fallen since August 1, 2015. It looks like the next 12 months could provide more of the same--and the Web press likely will be leading the way.
As we showed yesterday, the state's Web press--especially Bill Britt at Alabama Political Reporter(APR)--did most of the heavy lifting on the journalism that helped lead to Hubbard's downfall. But members of the MSM also made significant contributions, especially Josh Moon of the Montgomery Advertiser. John Archibald, of al.com, raised substantive points about the dangers and fears Hubbard is likely to face in prison--assuming his convictions are not overturned on appeal. But Archibald did not go far enough, failing to show how false arrests, false imprisonment, dubious lawsuits, and threats against advertisers have been used in efforts to shut down reporting from the Web press.
Moon provided some of the most insightful post-conviction analysis, with a piece titled "Hubbard conviction not a dark day." Writes Moon:
Friday was an average day in Alabama.
Oh, I know you’ve heard that it was a “dark day,” that former House Speaker, former state Representative and former non-felon Mike Hubbard’s conviction on 12 felony charges in the county where he resides was somehow an additional black mark on a state that’s running out of space for additional black marks.
But the truth is, it wasn’t dark.
Friday was just another day in a state where our politicians continue to give us all the middle finger, as they pilfer taxpayer dollars to pay their friends, their businesses and themselves.
Most don’t do it as blatantly as Hubbard. But most do it. Republican, Democrat, Independent -- the label is unimportant.
Moon showed how compromised legislators "give us the middle finger." And he showed that corrupt state judges helped create the toxic political environment that produced a "leader" like Mike Hubbard. Writes Moon:
[Legislators] accept consulting contracts from businesses they later pass legislation to help. They draw up and push through legislation to help their own businesses and friends. They take dark money from sources so their conflicts and hypocrisy stay hidden from public view.
And it’s not just our legislators.
Our judges are sometimes just as bad, if not worse.
Multiple justices on the Alabama Supreme Court have taken campaign money from corporations and then presided over cases involving those companies. There are campaign functions for judges held at or hosted by law firms, some of which have numerous cases go before that judge.
Every Alabamian should read and remember those words. Much of the state's political corruption flows from back-room deals that are cut in county courthouses. Some of it flows from federal courthouses, populated by judges who are more loyal to their political benefactors than they are to the U.S. Constitution.
As for Archibald, his column titled "Why Hubbard conviction is a really big deal for Alabama," hit close to home for this reporter. Archibald touched on a number of issues, including the unpleasantness that likely awaits Hubbard in an Alabama prison:
So Mike Hubbard, the self-proclaimed architect of the GOP takeover of the Statehouse, the consensus most powerful man in Alabama politics, the standout with his hand out, was convicted on 12 of 23 counts of using his office to fatten his own substantial wallet.
He's to be sentenced in July, and could face two to 20 years in state prison for each count. A state prison, one that get-tough-on-crime legislators have crammed to twice capacity, a state prison where fights are routine and rage simmers. It ain't Club Fed. It's real. Real prison. Real consequence. Real reason to be afraid.
Why do Archibald's words have special resonance with me? I know what it's like to be falsely arrested and incarcerated in Alabama, thanks to Rob Riley and other Mike Hubbard comrades in Riley Inc. I know what it's like to spend five months in an environment "where fights are routine and rage simmers." Archibald leaves out a couple of elements of prison life--despair also simmers there; and theft by inmates (against other inmates) is common. While in the Shelby County Jail, I witnessed a fellow inmate commit suicide by climbing atop two levels of cells and jumping some 27 feet to a concrete floor below, landing head-first about 10 feet away from where I was resting on my bunk.
|Steven Ray Dismuke|
Only after his jump, did I learn he had told other inmates that he suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and was not receiving treatment for either while in jail. Also, he had been placed in the general inmate population, even though his serious mental-health conditions probably should have placed him in a medical unit that required observation and treatment.
Yes, Mr. Archibald, Mike Hubbard probably will encounter "real reasons to be afraid" in prison. But at least Hubbard was convicted of crimes, by a jury of his peers. While I think you could make a strong argument that Attorney General Luther Strange politically prosecuted Hubbard, the trial itself appears to have been conducted fairly and by the book.
I, on the other hand, wound up being arrested without ever being charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. I never went before a jury, and I still have never seen a warrant that provided any justification for my arrest. Officers on the scene never told me why they were inside my house until after I had been beaten and doused with pepper spray. My arrest has all the appearances of a state-sanctioned kidnapping, featuring police brutality and gross Fourth Amendment violations.
It all was done, at least on the surface, because I dared to write about a relationship between lobbyist Liberty Duke and Rob Riley, a charter member of Riley Inc.--and apparently one of Mike Hubbard's strongest supporters. But Archibald and al.com never have seen fit to take a serious look at a blatant assault on a free press and the First Amendment. An al.com reporter sought comment from me at various stages in the "proceedings," but no one from the staff interviewed me or took a serious look at the flagrantly unlawful rulings of Judge Claud Neilson. Also, I'm not aware of any news outlet examining multiple requests from Riley, Duke, and their lawyers for remedies against me that are not allowed by law.
By the way, I'm not the only journalist to face such threats. Bill Britt, of Alabama Political Reporter(APR), saw his advertising base threatened, and he was hit with a dubious defamation lawsuit by Bryan Taylor, a Riley Inc. member.
Here is a little something I learned while incarcerated, and it might apply to Mike Hubbard. I came to know several inmates who had spent time in both county or municipal jails and in state prisons. Without fail, they all said they preferred to be in state prison. In fact, several inmates checked with jail personnel almost daily in hopes that papers had come for their transfer to state prison.
Why is this? The inmates said that most jails aren't designed to house inmates for a long time. Thus, the food, recreational, and educational opportunities are limited or nonexistent. Prison, however, generally is for those who have been sentenced to at least a year or more, so there tends to be real recreational and educational facilities and higher quality (and quantity) of food.
Several inmates told me the Shelby County Jail was the worst of all worlds. It was built to the specifications of a maximum-security federal prison (because the county wanted to house federal prisoners--and did so for several years). but it still was a jail with almost nothing positive to relieve inmate boredom, frustration, or despair.
So whatever awaits Mike Hubbard, it's likely to be more pleasant than what I've already faced.
Isn't it odd that this assault on a free press has received national and international coverage, but no Alabama mainstream news outlet has taken a serious look? As for Mr. Archibald, he seems concerned that Mike Hubbard might experience fear in prison as a consequence of being found guilty of crimes. Meanwhile, Mr. Archibald and al.com have shown no interest in shining light on the kidnapping of a journalist who had committed no crime--and whose reporting, as a matter of law, has never been shown to be false or defamatory.
|Sonny Reagan (right) and former Gov. Bob Riley|
Hubbard was convicted last Friday on 12 counts of ethics-law violations that largely involved such transactions. The same code section that forbids public officials or employees from taking such gifts, also prohibits "lobbyists, subordinates of lobbyists, or principals" from offering such gifts.
That could spell trouble for Tim Hamrick (American Pharmacy Cooperative Inc.), Michael Humphrey (Edgenuity), Will Brooke (Business Council of Alabama), Rob Burton (Hoar Construction), Jimmy Rane (Great Southern Wood), and James Holbrook (Sterne Agee), among others.
Perhaps the key unanswered question: How close will any future indictments get to key figures in Riley Inc., the political machine that seemingly is built around worship of former Gov. Bob Riley?
Why might the spotlight shine first on Reagan. He was forced to resign in December 2014 after Attorney General Luther Strange found he had leaked secret grand-jury information to political associates. Evidence released before the Hubbard trial started suggests Bob Riley, former first son Rob Riley, Hubbard attorney Bill Baxley, and Hubbard himself were among those who received Reagan's information.
There is a very real possibility, that former Deputy Attorney General, Henry T. “Sonny” Reagan, will be indicted, due to his alleged role in trying to hinder the investigation into the crimes of former Speaker of the House, Mike Hubbard. Hubbard has been found guilty of twelve felony counts of public corruption, Reagan has been accused of participating in a scheme to thwart the Attorney General’s Special Prosecution Unit, from ever bringing Hubbard to justice. . . .
It is believed Hubbard employed overlapping attorneys to gather information under attorney/client privilege. As this publication reported in April 2015, Hubbard used, “a matrix of overlapping attorneys seems to have allowed a free flow of secret information between Hubbard and individuals who have been named as material witnesses in the Hubbard indictments.” Court documents showed individuals who shared counsel with ties to Hubbard were Will Brooke, Jimmy Rane, Bob Riley and Minda Riley Campbell. Four of the seven individuals named in the Hubbard indictments shared attorneys.
According to court filings, when Brooke appeared before the Lee County Grand Jury he was accompanied by his attorney, “Mark White – the same attorney representing Hubbard. Similarly, Jim Pratt, another attorney representing Hubbard, accompanied Jimmy Rane during his appearance before the Grand Jury. Also, Hubbard’s attorney, Rob Riley, represents both Bob Riley and Minda Riley Campbell, and accompanied both of them to grand jury.”
|Yella Fella Jimmy Rane|
How far might new indictments reach? Britt provides clues:
Lead Prosecutor in the Hubbard case, Matt Hart, made it clear to former State Sen. Steve French during his testimony that he had broken his immunity with the Attorney General’s Office. . . .
Others who may be targeted could be APCI lobbyists Bill Ely and Ferrell Patrick. Former State Health Officer and current CEO of the Alabama Hospital Association, Dr. Don Williamson, could also face a perjury charge. Hart accused him of significantly changing his testimony during the Hubbard trial from what he had sworn to before the Lee County Special Grand Jury that indicted Hubbard.
The Lee County Special Grand Jury is still empaneled, which would seem to indicate more indictments are coming.
As for Riley Inc. (RI), it's hard to imagine that a serious inquiry into Sonny Reagan's misdeeds would not land close to the RI doorstep. Consider these words from our March 24, 2015, post titled "Mike Hubbard, and Bob and Rob Riley, received leaked grand-jury information as early as Dec. 2012":
Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard; former Governor Bob Riley; and Riley's son, Birmingham attorney Rob Riley, received leaked information related to the Lee County grand jury beginning in at least December 2012, according to court documents released yesterday.
E-mails between Hubbard and Bob Riley, included in the court documents, make it clear former Deputy Attorney General Sonny Reagan was the source of the leaks. Reagan was forced to resign from the AG's office in December 2014 amid allegations that he had shared secret grand-jury information with targets of the investigation.
Documents also show that the grand jury filed a subpoena seeking to question Rob Riley. His lawyer, William Athanas of the Birmingham firm Waller Landsen Dortch and Davis, threatened to file a motion to quash the subpoena, and Rob Riley apparently has managed to escape testifying so far.
We proceeded to raise the following question, which remains pertinent today, perhaps more than ever before:
The actions of Rob Riley, Bob Riley, Hubbard, and Reagan involve attempts to obstruct the Lee County grand jury. Could this lead to criminal charges--perhaps under the state statute for obstructing governmental operations? Since the federal wires were involved via e-mails, could that lead to federal obstruction of justice charges?
Before you searching always remember to change your IP adress to not be followed!
PROTECT YOURSELF & SUPPORT US! Purchase a VPN Today!
If that paragraph sounds beyond belief to you . . . well, that's how it sounds to me, too. But every word of it is true. It might be the most blatant sign yet that our court system is a dysfunctional mess, one that will require citizen oversight--and perhaps a bunch of federal prosecutions--to clean up.
Brock Turner, 20, was convicted on three felony charges in March and sentenced earlier this month to six months in county jail. Turner was arrested on January 18, 2015, after two students saw him on top of a woman behind a dumpster at about 1 a.m., near the Kappa Alpha fraternity on the Stanford campus. How brazen were Turner's actions? According to news reports, he had to be forced off his victim, then chased down and detained by passers-by until police arrived.
Charges against Turner originally included rape, but he was convicted on three felony counts--(1) Assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated woman; (2) Sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object; and (3) Sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.
Here is how The Guardian described the incident:
Turner, who is from Dayton, Ohio, was arrested on the Palo Alto campus on 18 January 2015 after two Stanford graduate students spotted him lying on top of the victim outside of a Kappa Alpha party behind a dumpster. When officers arrived, the woman, who is not a Stanford student, was “completely unresponsive” and partially clothed, with a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit, according to police.
The two witnesses who were biking past that evening said they saw Turner “thrusting” on top of the motionless woman and that they intervened and held him until police showed up.
Turner, who had a blood-alcohol level that was twice the legal limit, testified in court that he could walk and talk at the time and acknowledged that the victim was “very drunk”. He claimed that he did not intend to rape the woman and that the encounter was consensual.
The victim, who gave emotional testimony during the trial, regained consciousness at a hospital more than three hours after the assault and told police she had no memory of the attack.
According to Alabama attorney Donald Watkins, writing on his Facebook page, California law calls for a minimum sentence of two years on each of the three counts. This apparently is why prosecutors asked for a sentence of six years. Judge Aaron Persky, of Santa Clara County Superior Court, ignored the request and the law, sentencing Turner to six months.
Multiple news outlets have reported that Turner is expected to spend only three months behind bars. US News reports that Turner is expected to out of jail by September.
|My mugshot after being arrested for blogging in Alabama.|
The swollen eye is courtesy of Shelby County deputies, who
pummeled me inside my own home (including use of pepper
spray) without showing a warrant or stating
why they were there.
I was waiting for a ruling on the Motion to Quash, when Shelby County deputy Chris Blevins entered our home (the basement/garage), beating me up and dousing me with pepper spray while never showing a warrant and only stating his reason for being there after I had already been brutalized. I was hauled to jail, where I stayed for five months, until Carol was able to remove certain posts--even though they never had been found at trial to be false or defamatory. In fact, there was no trial, and there was no jury trial, as required by long-held defamation law.
I still can remember having inmates ask me, "What are you in for?" and seeing them double over in laughter when I said, "I was arrested for blogging." After dabbing their eyes from laughter, they usually said, "So you're the blogging guy. I heard about you. I didn't think you looked like you belonged in here."
Was I kidding when I gave that answer to such queries? Absolutely not. Riley and Duke's own actions--seeking an unlawful preliminary injunction, never asking for a trial, never asking for a jury--indicate they knew they had no defamation case. And as a matter of law, even a kangaroo court's actions showed my reporting to be neither false nor defamatory.
But I was in jail from October 23, 2013 to March 26, 2014--becoming the only journalist in the Western Hemisphere to be incarcerated during that time period. In fact, I'm the first U.S. journalist to be jailed since 2006, and I'm apparently the only one in U.S. history to be jailed because a preliminary injunction in a defamation case.
So Brock Turner likely gets three months for sexually assaulting a woman; Roger Shuler gets more than five months for writing a blog--one that has never proven to be anything but accurate.
Is it any wonder the public might be losing faith in a court system that wastes tax dollars in huge sums--and doesn't come close to dispensing justice?
The latest evidence of Bentley's thin grasp on reality comes in an al.com article last week titled "Gov. Robert Bentley: People of Alabama 'not interested in impeachment.' In case citizens failed to grasp that message the first time, Bentley repeated it at a ribbon-cutting this morning. To claim Alabamians don't care about the possible impeachment of their governor is nutty in itself. But Bentley does not stop there. Consider this from the al.com piece:
"We're going to be very cooperative with the legislature," Bentley said. "We have nothing to hide. We have no charges against us at all. We have nothing to hide. The truth always has a sound. And I can tell you, we tell the truth and we've done nothing wrong. We'll work with them and it's really not a problem. They are trying to feel their way through this process so we'll let them do that."
The truth always has a sound? Has the governor been listening to his collection of Grateful Dead records? More importantly, Bentley portrays himself as an honorable guy who tells the truth--when we have indisputable evidence that he and the truth have a fractured relationship, at best.
In December 2015, Bentley told al.com reporter Chuck Dean (has he gone into a witness-protection program?) that the two citizen journalists -- attorney Donald Watkins and yours truly -- who broke the story of the governor's affair with advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason got it wrong. Bentley declared "the rumors were not true," that "people on blogs" had "crossed the line," that the bloggers were "just ridiculous," and he did not know "how anyone could believe them."
In March of this year, audiotapes surfaced of Bentley speaking rapturously about fondling Mason's breasts and exploring her nether regions. Hmmm . . . it seems the "bloggers" weren't so "ridiculous" after all. Mason promptly stepped down, and new reports suggest another batch of tapes are out there, much more graphic than the first ones.
So Bentley claims to be a truth teller, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. What would a truth teller have done when former First Lady Diane Bentley took a walk on the beach and set up a cell phone to capture Bentley and Mason engaged in "dirty talk?" Well, here's what a really truthful guy would have said when Mrs. Bentley returned from her walk: "Hey honey, guess what. I just got off the phone with my mistress, Rebekah--you know, the one who is young enough to be our daughter--and we had the best time talking about those special moments when I fondled her breasts and caressed her . . . well, you know, down there. I told her that no 50-year marriage to an old crone like you could compare to the thrill of taking in her lustrous young flesh. Just wanted to keep you posted because I am one truth-tellin' guy."
The Alabama House Judiciary Committee began impeachment proceedings against Bentley last week. But Watkins, who surely is one of the most skilled criminal-defense and civil-rights lawyers Alabama ever has produced, says impeachment is relatively minor compared to the roaring freight train that is bearing down on Bentley and his colleagues. Writes Watkins, in a Facebook post titled "Bentley's indictment more important than his impeachment":
I am not worried about Governor Robert Bentley's impeachment. His indictment on racketeering and public corruption charges is coming soon. The only real question is who will help him make his sky-high bail. I think Bentley is a flight risk and should be denied bail. He will be "perp walked" out of the governor's office since he will not leave on his own.
The number of criminal charges against Bentley is expected to establish a record for a federal racketeering case. I can't wait for Bentley's post-indictment press conference to see which public officials stand by Bentley's side to proclaim his innocence.
Ouch, it hurts just to read that. But as you can tell from the video below, taken last week at a ceremonial groundbreaking in Huntsville, the guv seems to have no clue about what likely awaits him:
The obvious answer to the primary question is Bill Baxley and his Birmingham-based law firm. After all, they represented Hubbard at trial and should be well acquainted with issues that might be raised on appeal. The Baxley firm, however, produced a poor result for Hubbard the first time around. According to one report, court insiders rated defense attorney Lance Bell's closing as the "most bizarre and amateurish" they had ever witnessed.
I can think of at least two other Birmingham firms who might want in on the Hubbard appellate action -- one is Bradley Arant and the other is Maynard Cooper Gale. In fact, one of those firms already has produced written material that indicates it's ready to jump into the game.
Bradley Arant might be a fairly obvious choice for Hubbard. It's a right-wing, pro-business firm with longstanding ties to former governor Bob Riley and his Riley Inc. political machine, of which Hubbard is a prominent member. Kevin C. Newsom, chair of the firm's appellate group, reportedly has an exceptionally close relationship with U.S. District Judge William Pryor. It was Pryor, of course, who largely ushered in the Riley governorship by refusing to allow a recount after votes for Democratic incumbent Don Siegelman had disappeared overnight in heavily Republican Baldwin County.
|Kevin C. Newsom|
But it also has a tone of, "We think the jury got it wrong, and here are key points we could use to get the verdict overturned and ensure Mike Hubbard's freedom." In fact, the post highlights five points, with brief explanations, that could form the foundation of Hubbard's appeal. Here they are:
(1) The prosecution and jury broadly interpreted the term "principal"
"In the Hubbard matter, two of the counts on which the Speaker was convicted (Counts 16 and 23) involved the receipt of a “thing of value” from an individual described in the indictment as a board member of a trade association. According to the prosecution, therefore, a board member of an association that employs lobbyists is a principal, and is therefore prohibited from providing a thing of value to a public official. Given the conviction on these counts, the jury seems to have agreed with this interpretation. If the verdict stands, the meaning of principal would apparently be much broader than many believed prior to the Hubbard trial and places many businesses and associations at unknown risk if they employ lobbyists."
(2) The prosecution and jury interpreted the phrase "thing of value" broadly, and included intangible items such as advice and introductions.
"In the Hubbard matter, Count 23 alleged that a board member of a trade association provided “assistance with obtaining new clients . . . and/or financial advice” to the Speaker. Essentially, the charge alleged that the board member assisted the Speaker with an analysis of the Speaker’s business, and advice as to how to revive that business. Further, the Count alleged that the board member helped find possible investors in the Speaker’s company and may have provided introductions to those potential investors. The “thing of value” provided in Count 23 was therefore intangible, and not a gift, a sum of money, a trip, or a junket. Instead, it was something that—at least arguably—had no resale or intrinsic value. From the perspective of interaction with public officials and public employees, this creates the risk that non-monetary assistance such as advice will be considered a “thing of value.” If it is provided by a principal or lobbyist, it may create criminal liability.
(3) Though a “friendship” exception exists in the Act, the jury did not always accept the defense’s arguments based on it.
Throughout the Hubbard trial, the defense elicited testimony from those alleged to have provided things of value to the Speaker that they were friends with the Speaker, and that this friendship was what had motivated them, rather than the Speaker’s role in Alabama government. The jury appears to have accepted that defense in certain instances, as it acquitted the Speaker on numerous counts involving the receipt of advice or assistance from some people. However, the jury rejected the defense on other counts, particularly on that [involving] a person who had known and considered the Speaker a friend for 14 years before Speaker Hubbard ever ran for office.
A fairly strong argument could—and likely will—be made on appeal that the standard set forth in the statute may be too vague to impose criminal liability.
(4) The definition of a legislative "conflict of interest" is broader than the language of the Act itself.
(5) Written consultation with the Ethics Commission is more important than ever.
Speaker Hubbard was acquitted on several counts for activity about which he had specifically met with the Ethics Commission’s staff and had received a letter indicating he was permitted to undertake. In contrast, the Speaker was convicted for conducting very similar activity for other entities in situations that he did not have written pre-clearance. It appears that the different verdicts on these similar counts may have been based [on] the existence of the letter authorizing the Speaker’s employment and activities.
What does this sound like to you? To me, it sounds like the lawyers of Maynard Cooper Gale believe Hubbard has some substantial issues to raise on appeal--and they are just the lawyers to do it.
Will that prove to be true? It's too early to tell, but Drayton Nabers, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is "of counsel" at MCG. Who appointed Nabers as chief justice? Why, it was none other than then Governor Bob Riley, who had to fill the vacancy in 2003 when Roy Moore was removed from office for his insistence on keeping a Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse. Nabers served for three years, until Democrat Sue Bell Cobb beat him in a major 2006 upset.
Nabers clearly is a member of Riley Inc., and if Hubbard still is making the mistake of taking advice from the Riley clan, Nabers' law firm could wind up at the heart of Hubbard's appeal.
|Bob Riley, on the stand at Mike Hubbard trial|
The first report comes from former lobbyist Jarrod Massey, who spent more than three years in prison after pleading guilty in the Alabama bingo trial -- which produced zero guilty verdicts. After Hubbard was found guilty on 12 of 23 counts on June 10, Massey wrote two Facebook posts (see here and here) that showed empathy for Hubbard and his family -- and disgust at a system that has been rigged by figures who are far more powerful (and dangerous) than Hubbard.
This is from Massey, the voice of experience:
First, politicos (especially elected officials) largely suffer from a false sense of entitlement which is fueled to a great degree by people catering to them over an extended period of time. . . . Over time this greatly clouds the somewhat rationale thinking of many politicos. Even though Mike Hubbard heard guilty verdicts yesterday and is dealing with that reality as I write this, his thinking is still likely very fouled up. The other thing is many successful people are very optimistic people....so, someone like Mike is likely still thinking of a better outcome and holding on to that which is likely clouding his judgement even now in the face of many years in a state prison facility.
What should Hubbard do now? Massey has ideas:
Mike should think long and hard about having his attorneys approach the government and see if he can work out an arrangement to come clean and take ownership of his actions at sentencing without the fear of a perjury charge. Mike, if you truly are innocent absolutely fight with your last breath and continue to state your innocence...BUT, if not, he should outright tell the Judge he has no plans to appeal the conviction and that he plans to accept his sentence whatever it may be (within the law and reason of course).
Mike should realize he faces the likelihood of other charges coming his way and as pressure will certainly be put on others to tell what they know about Mike that is a very real possibility. You've got to be pretty thick-headed to have spent the time listening to the testimony you did and not connect a few dots of what is to come for those who interacted with you in the matters brought up at trial alone. You AND YOUR FAMILY are not out of the fire. Right now those you may think of as friends mostly are not your friends. . . .
This is not about Mike "ratting" out others but rather facing the reality of the situation he is in, which he alone appears to have created . . . with a long list of co-conspirators it would pretty solidly appear. Yes, the process is really fouled up but that is not going to change any time soon. We often hear folks talking about keeping your mouth quiet and not implicating others and so forth....take your medicine per se (I've said it many times in the past). It is far from that simple. Once you are in the spot Mike is a lot of this is not even in your hands.
Massey then turns his attention to former governor Bob Riley--and the future of Alabama:
No question, I am not a fan of any sort of Mike Hubbard, nor Bob Riley. This has nothing to do about my previous guilt or innocence. I was guilty and deserved to go to prison. However, I know all too well the extent of time and energy both these men devoted to ensuring my downfall and that of others who were later proven innocent . . . and I know many of the tactics they used to not only ensure they snared me and others, but I know very well who benefited financially and otherwise from my fall . . . my top clients found their way overnight . . . in fact, they were headed in another direction before I was even indicted.....mostly into the firm of Hubbard's and Riley's closest lobbying and consulting ally at the time. It will not be by me, but one day a book or some true telling of the period between 2008-2010/2012 will come about. As with most things like this it will be years later when people are more secure in their stages of life. Much of Alabama changed in 2010 with Riley and Hubbard's prevention of a measure coming before the people of Alabama that would have allowed the people of Alabama to decide an issue. THERE WAS SO MUCH MORE THAN JUST BINGO occurring in 2010! It was not so much about the issue of electronic bingo but more so about how the door was about to be opened to a totally new source of political influence. Yes, I realize I am being a bit cryptic here, but this is all I am really comfortable saying at this point in my own effort to rebuild my life. . . .
Then, Massey gets to the heart of the matter -- Alabama will continue to be a cesspool as long as Riley Inc. remains intact:
[The Hubbard conviction] was a win for justice in our state. However, it will only be a token win unless Bob Riley is required to go before a similar process and have a jury of peers review his dealings in similar detail and whereby Riley has to decide whether to tell the truth or risk perjury himself. Motorcycle crash.....unbelievable that worked? If I had tried that one just imagine....they would have had the U.S. Marshalls hauling my supposedly mangled body to the nearest video camera for questioning.
Other than perhaps child molesters and animal abusers, I despise hypocrites most of all. . . . There are more rocks to turn over before enough have been turned over to find all the Hubbard and Riley accomplices. This said, those who typically go after Riley in particular don't usually fare well. It will take strong men of character to do just that. I am prayerful we have some who have the stomach and strength of character for the work.
The second report comes from Joe Miller, a faculty member at Columbus State University who wrote a five-part series on Alabama scandals for The New Republic. Miller's last installment is titled "Beyond Mike Hubbard: How Deep Does Corruption in Alabama Go?" In it, the author points a finger directly at Bill Canary, portraying him as a cowardly and slippery character who is ethically challenged to his core. Writes Miller:
Midway through former Alabama Speaker Mike Hubbard’s corruption trial, the state’s most powerful man was hiding in an empty corridor of the Lee County courthouse. Another long day of courtroom drama had come and gone, and the TV news crews had set up their cameras outside the main entrance to catch the defendant and his co-stars as they emerged. But tucked into a nook that used to house public phones stood Billy Canary, a former White House staffer for George H.W. Bush, a longtime friend of Karl Rove, and president and CEO of the mighty Business Council of Alabama (BCA). “I want to wait until the media is gone,” he said to his lawyer.
|Bill Canary (right) and prosecutor Matt Hart|
Canary, it seems, managed to neatly sidestep most of the fallout from the Hubbard trial -- as did Bob Riley. How long will their good fortune last? Writes Miller:
The members of the jury were in deliberations for a little less than seven hours. Their 12 guilty verdicts were for three different schemes: voting on legislation benefiting American Pharmacies Cooperative, Inc., a registered principal with which Hubbard had a consulting contract; using state resources to do work for, and lobbying state officials on behalf of, Bobby Abrams, owner of CV Holdings, who was paying the speaker $10,000 a month; and receiving contracts and investments from principals, including Canary’s boss, Will Brooke, and Hubbard’s longtime friend, Jimmy Rane.
As for Canary—who was instrumental in the schemes that took the speaker down and now threaten to ensnare four top leaders in the very business community for which the BCA advocates—the charge in which he was named came back not guilty. (Same for former Governor Riley.)
It was friendship and stinginess that came through for Alabama’s most powerful man. Unlike Rane and Brooke, Canary never gave Hubbard anything of real value. Under cross-examination, he said of the former speaker, “I love him like a brother.” The two pals had even gone to a ZZ Top concert together, Canary testified, adding sheepishly: “I’m embarrassed to admit that.”
Why would Canary be embarrassed to attend a ZZ Top concert? The concert undoubtedly was more wholesome than many of Canary's other activities. Writes Miller:
Now Canary, who didn’t have the courage to face the cameras after his day in court, is free to craft the BCA’s annual “Blueprint for Success,” and continue lobbying for the pro-business agenda that has made Alabama one of the worst-run states in the union. And his “brother” is out on $160,000 bond, awaiting his sentencing hearing scheduled for July 8.
This series began with a question: “Is Mike Hubbard the most corrupt politician in America?”
Three weeks of trial and twelve guilty verdicts later, the answer is no.
He’s not even the most corrupt figure in the state.
|Robert Bentley and Rebekah Caldwell Mason|
A toxic psychological brew that helped touch off the scandal began when Gov. Bentley grew bored with a life that probably seemed idyllic to others. File that under "Idleness Is the Devil's Workshop."
Gov. Bentley was susceptible to sexual temptation because . . . well, he married young, was averaging looking (at best), and he was not used to receiving come-ons--especially from former beauty-queen types like Rebekah Caldwell Mason. File that under "You're Never Too Old to Become a Horndog."
Finally, a key moment in the scandal was touched off when Bentley's sons wisely realized that Mason, as their father's mistress, could take steps that would devastate their mother financially. File that under "No Scandal is Complete Without Courtroom Drama."
Those are four of many revelations in an article published yesterday by GQ about a man who has gone from being a mild-mannered dermatologist to being seen as our "horndog governor." That transformation has placed Bentley and Mason at the heart of a federal investigation that could see both of them serving lengthy prison sentences.
The article, by political reporter Jason Zengerle, is titled (appropriately enough) "The Love Song Of Robert Bentley: Alabama's Horndog Governor." Zengerle does not touch much on the legal problems hanging over Bentley and Mason. But he provides a compelling and incisive account of the human weaknesses and foibles that led the governor and his senior advisor into an "inappropriate relationship" of epic proportions.
In shades of the Mike Hubbard scandal, money problems -- or perhaps we should say perceived money problems -- led down a slippery slope. From Zengerle's GQ article:
As political temptresses go, Rebekah Mason was, in some ways, a familiar one. A onetime news anchor, she'd done a tour of minor Alabama media markets before leaving TV to raise her children. In the summer of 2010, she and her husband, a meteorologist, were facing financial difficulties. Their church, First Baptist of Tuscaloosa, had tried to help the young family, praying for God's assistance. When their fellow congregant Robert Bentley had an opening in his campaign press office, one of his sons suggested the nice young woman from church who was struggling to make ends meet, according to a person familiar with the circumstances behind Mason's hiring. After Bentley was elected, he appointed the former TV reporter the governor's communications director, and he even gave her husband, Jon, a $90,000-a-year job as the head of the governor's office of faith-based initiatives. It seemed that everyone's prayers had been answered.
None of this would have happened if Bentley had not decided, fairly late in life, to enter politics. And that would not have happened if he had not grown bored with his life as a respected dermatologist; (seemingly) devoted husband to Dianne; and attentive father to four sons. Writes Zengerle:
According to this friend, Mason was dismayed by how alone the governor felt. Bentley had gone into politics, he once told her, because he could no longer stand the tedium of his dermatology practice and the banality of those Lean Cuisine pizza lunches at home with Dianne. “He wanted more,” this Mason friend told me, “and his family didn't understand that.”
Mason was young, ambitious, and attractive and could present temptations that Bentley did not know how to handle, Mason's friends apparently saw her as the kind of "visionary" strategic planner the governor needed. Those close to Bentley saw Mason as . . . well, maybe the term is "political gold digger."
People close to Bentley, however, told me they viewed Mason's role in starkly different terms. They believe that Mason wormed her way into the governor's good graces through flattery and flirtation. To their minds, Bentley—an awkward man with a heart-rending comb-over who'd married young and come late to his lofty position—was unaccustomed to female attention. And foolishly susceptible to it. When his advisers would caution him about pushing for things the legislature wouldn't support, like a teacher pay raise, Mason would counter in a syrupy voice, “But you're the governor. People love you.”
The story of the Bentley/Mason affair finally became public in late August 2015 when Dianne Bentley filed for divorce to end a 50-year marriage. Legal Schnauzer was the first news outlet to report the affair and name Mason as the governor's mistress. At about the same time, attorney Donald Watkins presented a multi-part series on his Facebook page, describing many of the scandal's inner workings. The mainstream media (MSM) largely ignored the story, although MSM reporters offered a number of attacks on me.
What prompted Dianne Bentley to file for divorce when she did? GQ provides insight:
For the Bentley sons, according to people close to the family, anger now metastasized into a fear that Mason could bring further havoc. (Bentley family members have declined to comment.) Should things sour, they worried Mason could claim she was sexually harassed and file a devastating civil suit. They implored their mother—who they knew still loved their father—to divorce him so that she could at least lay claim to half his assets now. And so, last August, Dianne Bentley filed for divorce. She cited irreconcilable differences. She did not claim infidelity, nor did she make any mention of the incriminating tape.
Bentley might be a sorry excuse for a governor -- and a husband -- but he and Dianne did not raise dummies. The brothers provided shrewd advice that probably ensured their mother would live out a comfortable life. And yes, the possibility of Mason bringing a sexual harassment claim probably was very real.
How badly have the people of Alabama been served in all of this? That might be the most important question of all, and GQ provides insights:
Whatever Mason's motives—to buck up a governor who she felt needed to assert himself or to win the affections of a lovelorn old man—the ego-stroking worked so well that some people were shocked. “When she became his top political adviser, it was like the Hindenburg came down and fell on the Titanic as the Titanic hit the iceberg,” one person who was once close to Bentley told me. “I was watching a woman who didn't know how a bill becomes a law running the state of Alabama.”
Yep, those conservative, "Christian" Republicans sure know how to govern -- when they aren't busy figuring out ways to satisfy their inappropriate urges, on the public dime.
Before you searching always remember to change your IP adress to not be followed!
PROTECT YOURSELF & SUPPORT US! Purchase a VPN Today!
On a related note, corporate interests are pushing for the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute Bentley, concerned the governor's buffoonish and apparently criminal actions will sully the state's business climate, according to a new report.
What exactly happened late last week in Alabama's capital? Here is our best guess, based on a review of multiple press reports: (1) State auditor Jim Zeigler said his office had received multiple reports that FBI agents had seized records and equipment during a raid at the Information Services Division of the Governor's Finance Office; (2) Bentley fired James Nolin, chief information officer in the finance office, and placed Rex McDowell, assistant director of finance information/administrative services, on leave; (3) Members of the Bentley administration claimed there had been a computer-security breach, and they invited the FBI to help investigate the matter; (4) The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA) said Bentley was asking the FBI to assist with a "routine administrative audit"; (5) An FBI official said the agency was not involved with an audit in Alabama "at this time."
Is all of this a full, or partial, smokescreen? Watkins, reporting at his Facebook page, says the answer likely is yes. From Watkins post last Friday:
Alabama Governor Robert Bentley has thrown two more staffers under the bus in an effort to conceal his criminal conduct in improperly accessing two federal criminal databases in an unsuccessful effort to frame Roger Alan Shuler and me on trumpeted up criminal charges. Former Alabama Law Enforcement Agency chief Spencer Collier refused to participate in the governor’s scheme to frame Shuler and me. The scheme violated federal criminal laws.
Bentley was attempting to retaliate against Shuler and me for publishing online articles last year that criticized his improper conduct as governor and exposed his love secret affair with executive mistress Rebekah Caldwell Mason. The passage of time has confirmed that these articles were true in all material respects. . . .
The governor's effort to discredit Shuler and me failed, miserably. We continue to break the news on Bentley's "sex for power" and public corruption scandal.
The FBI's investigation of Bentley is focused on his racketeering and public corruption conduct as governor. His primary accomplice in these crimes was Rebekah Mason.
The governor is aware that his federal criminal indictment is imminent. The number of counts in the indictment is expected to set a record for a federal racketeering and public corruption case. Bentley will be arrested at his capitol office, which is the headquarters for his racketeering enterprise.
Is Watkins' analysis on target? An al.com report indicates at least one criminal database, which Bentley reportedly had ordered used to help frame Watkins and me is, in fact, involved with the current raid/seizure/audit. From al.com reporter Paul Gattis:
According to Bentley's letter, ALEA Secretary Stan Stabler informed the governor that "several contract personnel working for (the finance department's Information Services Division) were improperly granted access to IT resources that support ALEA and the state of Alabama's CJIS (Criminal Justice Information Systems) network."
CJIS, a part of the FBI, is the world's largest repository of criminal fingerprints and history records available to investigators and police professionals that is the "cornerstone of protecting the nation," according to the FBI website.
How do corporate executives enter the picture? Watkins, who has been successful enough in a number of business ventures (banking, energy, transportation) that he could bid to become owner of multiple professional sports franchises (Minnesota Twins, Tampa Bay Rays, Los Angeles Angels, Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals, and St. Louis Rams), explains, in post published on Saturday:
Alabama is home to three major automobile producers: Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Honda Manufacturing of Alabama, and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama. The state is also home to two major engine producers, International Diesel of Alabama and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Alabama, Inc.
Last year, Google, Inc., the world’s second most valuable company, announced that it would invest $600 million to locate a massive data processing center in north Alabama, one of only fourteen in the world. Google’s financial investment in Jackson County matches Airbus’s $600 million investment in Mobile, Alabama, where the aerospace giant began building its first U.S.-based production facility in 2013.
These companies are global conglomerates. They could have easily located their manufacturing facilities in other countries. For a variety of reasons, they chose to locate their facilities in the United States and to site them in Alabama.
None of these companies can afford to be associated, directly or indirectly, with Alabama Governor Robert Bentley's “sex for power” and public corruption scandal. All of them have stellar international reputations that must be safeguarded from embarrassing scandals at all times. Under no circumstances can they bring world leaders and industry giants to a meeting with a sitting governor who is the “target” of an ongoing federal criminal investigation for racketeering and public corruption.
Furthermore, Alabama’s governor has become the laughingstock of the nation. Bentley’s salacious scandal has dragged Alabama back into the negative spotlight of every major newspaper and electronic media organization in the world. Yet, Bentley, whose situation is analogous to a “dead man walking”, refuses to resign.
The United States government is keenly aware of its affirmative obligation to project America in a strong and positive light to its trade partners around the world. Once the Justice Department in Washington learned that Bentley was operating a full-scale racketeering enterprise directly out of the governor’s office in a state that is home to five of the world’s largest international corporations, the Department realized the huge negative impact that Bentley’s criminal conduct could have on America’s mostly positive image in the international business world.
In short, Bentley has become an embarrassment on both the national and international stages. Writes Watkins:
While major in-state corporations could choose to stick their heads in the sand and tolerate the governor’s buffoonery, the international conglomerates in Alabama could not afford to do so. Some of these conglomerates made it known to the Justice Department, via private channels, that Bentley’s sexcapades with Rebekah Mason and his publicly reported public corruption were bad for America’s international business image and growth. What is more, the sex tapes of Bentley reminiscing about putting his hands on Rebekah’s breasts and parading in front of her in his boxer shorts were too much of an embarrassment for the home office executives of these companies to stomach. Alabama’s public officials may not have minimum standards of decency and ethics in office, but the heads of these international conglomerates certainly do.
Something had to be done about Bentley’s out-of-the-closet and out-of-control criminal conduct. As 2015 was nearing an end, the timing was right for responsible corporate action to address Bentley’s growing scandal.
Where does the situation stand now? Watkins explains:
Recognizing the serious international implications of Robert Bentley’s racketeering case from an equal justice and international business development standpoint, the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation of the governor. The Department’s first assessment centered on Montgomery U.S. Attorney George Beck, Jr., and his fitness to serve as a member of the prosecution team. The Department quickly concluded that Beck was nothing more than a “bootlicking flunky” for Bentley and his chief legal adviser, David Byrne. Additionally, Beck did not have adequate legal skills for this prosecutorial job. The Department thereafter removed Beck and his entire office from any involvement in Bentley’s criminal case.
Since taking over the case, Horn’s team of prosecutors and FBI agents has aggressively investigated Bentley’s racketeering conduct. They have interviewed scores of key witnesses in the case, and some of them have been interviewed on multiple occasions. They have seized bank records, donor records from non-profit corporations, financial records from Bentley’s campaign, records of electronic transmissions between Bentley, Mason, Byrne and other culprits, records from businesses associated with Mason and Bentley, and state government computers. They are well aware of attempts by Bentley and some of his loyalists within the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency to obstruct their investigation. . . .
In the end, Robert Bentley’s arrogant and small-minded thinking was no match for the private back-channel calls for criminal justice by the powerful international conglomerates that invested billions of dollars in manufacturing facilities in Alabama. Their voices, along with others, were heard within the Justice Department.
In fact, Siegelman's best hope might have little to do with the McDonnell case and everything to do with the fact that trial judge Mark Fuller no longer is on the federal bench.
Appellate-court decisions often focus on narrow issues that might, or might not, apply to similar cases. Such rulings are written in a form that is . . . well, let's just say they hardly are models of clarity. Both of those qualifiers apply to McDonnell v. United States, which was issued yesterday morning (The opinion is embedded at the end of this post.), and that makes it difficult to come to solid conclusions about how it might apply to the Siegelman case.
First, McDonnell dealt almost entirely with this narrow question: Did McDonnell take "official action" to benefit a constituent (Jonnie Williams) who showered the governor and his wife with favors and more than $175,000 in gifts (Rolexes, designer clothes, catering for a daughter's wedding), apparently in hopes of receiving favorable action for his vitamin and dietary-supplement company.
The McDonnells helped arrange meetings for Williams with state university and health-care officials who might be able to help launch his products. Federal prosecutors argued that was an illegal "quid pro quo" -- the gifts (the "quid") in exchange for access to key state officials (the "quo"). But SCOTUS found that setting up meetings for Williams was part of everyday activity for a governor; it was not an official action, meaning their was a "quid" but no "quo."
In our coverage of the Siegelman case, plus a quick review of documents yesterday, I have not found any evidence that the "official action" question was raised. It appears that both sides conceded Siegelman's appointment of former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy was an "official action." Does that mean McDonnell offers nothing for Siegelman, that the former Alabama Governor (still in federal prison at Oakdale, Louisiana) is out of luck because yesterday's ruling focused narrowly on an issue that didn't seem to be in play at the Siegelman trial?
Not necessarily -- at least in my view?
Here are three possible avenues that Siegelman might be able to pursue:
(1) What in the heck is an "official action" now, anyway?
Here is how the McDonnell court described it on page 26 of its ruling:
In sum, an “official act” is a decision or action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.” The “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” must involve a formal exercise of governmental power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee. It must also be something specific and focused that is “pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official. To qualify as an “official act,” the public official must make a decision or take an action on that “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” or agree to do so. That decision or action may include using his official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an “official act,” or to advise another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an “official act” by another official. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)—without more—does not fit.
Was Siegelman's appointment of Scrushy to the Certificate of Needs (CON) board a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy?" Scrushy had served on the board under three previous governors, so it doesn't appear there was much of a "question,""cause,""suit,""proceeding," or "controversy." The prosecution might argue that it was a "matter," thus making it an "official action." But is there anything in the language that plainly states an appointment to a board, especially one the appointee already had served on under three governors, is an "official action"? I don't see it, and this could be an avenue of review for Siegelman.
(2) Was the Scrushy appointment "pending" before Siegelman?
The new definition of an "official act" includes an emphasis on decisions that are "pending" before a public official. From page 22 of the McDonnell ruling:
In addition to the requirements we have described, §201(a)(3) states that the question or matter must be “pending” or “may by law be brought” before “any public official.” “Pending” and “may by law be brought” suggest something that is relatively circumscribed—the kind of thing that can be put on an agenda, tracked for progress, and then checked off as complete. In particular, “may by law be brought” conveys something within the specific duties of an official’s position—the function conferred by the authority of his office. The word “any” conveys that the matter may be pending either before the public official who is performing the official act, or before another public official.
Was the Scrushy appointment "pending" before Siegelman at the time of the donation? That seems to be in doubt. There long has been confusion about how much money Scrushy donated in the Siegelman matter, when he donated it, and why he donated it. In a recent interview with Legal Schnauzer, Scrushy said he gave $250,000 (not $500,000, as has been widely reported), he gave it not to promote Siegelman's education-lottery proposal, but to help pay down the Alabama Democratic Party's debt after the lottery had been defeated, and he gave the money as he was stepping down from the CON board.
If that's the case, there was no "quid pro quo" at all. Either way, it appears the Scrushy appointment was not "pending" before Siegelman at the time of the donation -- and that means it may not have been an "official act," as described in McDonnell.
(3) The constituent (Williams) in the McDonnell case clearly wanted something that would favor his company. Evidence at trial showed that Scrushy did not want anything from Siegelman.
At its heart, the McDonnell case is about a constituent (Williams) who showered favors and gifts upon the governor and his wife, in hopes of receiving positive official action for his company. Here is how Chief Justice John Roberts put it in his McDonnell opinion:
Petitioner, former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, and his wife, Maureen McDonnell, were indicted by the Federal Government on honest services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion charges related to their acceptance of $175,000 in loans, gifts, and other benefits from Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams, while Governor McDonnell was in office. Williams was the chief executive officer of Star Scientific, a Virginia-based company that had developed Anatabloc, a nutritional supplement made from anatabine, a compound found in tobacco. Star Scientific hoped that Virginia’s public universities would perform research studies on anatabine, and Williams wanted Governor McDonnell’s assistance in obtaining those studies.
Clearly, Williams wanted something from McDonnell, and that appears to be at the heart of the court's analysis on whether McDonell gave him something in the form of an "official action." The high court ultimately concluded that McDonnell took no such action.
But what about the Siegelman case. Evidence at trial showed Scrushy did not even want anything from Siegelman. Here is how a 2006 Associated Press story, written by the late Bob Johnson, put it:
Former Alabama Power Co. CEO Elmer Harris, the chairman of Don Siegelman's transition team when he was elected governor in 1998, testified Monday that Scrushy said he had no interest in serving on the Certificate of Need Review Board. The prosecution claims he was named to the panel in exchange for arranging for $500,000 in contributions to Siegelman's campaign for a statewide lottery.
"He did not want to serve on the CON Board. He was not going to serve on the CON Board. He was going to tell Don Siegelman he didn't want to do it," Harris said.
Harris was called by the defense to challenge testimony of Bailey, who said Siegelman told him that Scrushy had agreed to arrange the campaign donations in exchange for a seat on the CON Board. Bailey has pleaded guilty and defense attorneys say he is lying to in hopes of getting a lighter sentence.
How could a jury believe Nick Bailey, who had pleaded guilty to corruption charges, and not Elmer Harris, one of the state's most respected corporate executives at the time? I don't think anyone's ever been able to explain that one. But regardless of what was going on with the apparently compromised Siegelman jury, Harris' testimony raised clear reasonable doubt that, by law, should have precluded convictions.
The McDonnell ruling helps drive that home. If no one asked Siegelman to take "official action" -- and court testimony from a highly credible witness showed Scrushy did not -- then how could Siegelman take "official action," as now defined by McDonnell? The answer: he couldn't.
Item No. 3, in my view, might be the strongest route for Siegelman and Scrushy to seek review. Will they try to use McDonnell to earn Siegelman's freedom and get Scrushy's name cleared (He's already served his prison sentence.)? If so, will a court expedite the appeal, given that a 70-year-old man is in prison for a crime that does not exist, under the law -- and the McDonnell case adds to Siegelman's possible grounds for relief?
As regular readers know, I'm not a lawyer, but there might be more than one way for the Siegelman/Scrushy legal teams to go. My semi-educated guess is that they would need to file something akin to a Motion to Reconsider in the trial court (or perhaps a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus), and with Mark Fuller booted from the bench, they might actually have a chance to get a fair hearing. Depending on the speed of the defendants' legal teams, such a motion probably could be filed by the end of this week. If the court grants an expedited hearing -- and it should -- that could come in, say, the middle of July.
A new judge (not Mark Fuller) could make an immediate ruling, take several months to issue a written order, or free Siegelman pending a determination on the issues raised. Does that mean Siegelman could be released in about a month? Well, that might be a pipe dream on my part, but I welcome the comments of those with deeper knowledge about procedure in such cases.
Meanwhile, the key point is this. The McDonnell ruling hardly provides a "gimme" for Siegelman and Scrushy. But it has cracked the window open just a bit. Is the crack wide enough for the defendants to seek a review based on SCOTUS' new definition of "official action"?
Whatever you might think of Siegelman and Scrushy, they have proven to be fighters. They have shown no signs of giving up. I doubt they will start showing such signs now.
Riley testified that he and Hubbard talked so frequently that some of their conversations could just be called "banter."
"You have to understand my relationship with Mike. . . . We talk about everything," Riley said.
If Riley is to be believed here -- and that's a big if -- he told Hubbard "everything" about dubious activities the former governor, his family members, and allies have been involved in over probably the past 20 years or so.
What does that mean? It could mean that Hubbard -- who has been described as a greedy, lying, cheating, arrogant, self-centered tyrant -- could be way worse than that. It suggests Hubbard has a severe character or personality disorder--likely antisocial personality disorder, also known as sociopathy. It suggests Hubbard might be dealing with narcissistic personality disorder, too.
We are not qualified to make a medical diagnosis of Hubbard or anyone else. But we do know one state journalist has compared him to Caligula. Based on the implications of Bob Riley's testimony, that might be an insult to Caligula.
If Riley actually told Hubbard about "everything" associated with his tenure as governor and the activities of the political machine that has come to be known as Riley Inc. -- and Hubbard reported none of it to authorities -- well, that means the Speaker is a seriously warped individual, who probably needs to be incarcerated to the fullest extent of the law. It also might mean that he should be prosecuted for at least one federal crime -- ironically, one now associated with the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.
What would it mean if Bob Riley told Hubbard "everything." It probably means Hubbard knows about a bottomless pit of corruption--much of it involving felonies, or significant civil liability--and he's kept it largely to himself. That's not how it's supposed to work, under the law.
Just consider what Hubbard likely knows involving my wife, Carol, and me:
* He knows who cheated me out of my job at UAB, after I had worked there for 20 years;
* He knows who cheated Carol out of her job at Infinity Insurance, where she had worked for three years;
* He knows who caused Carol and me to be cheated in our federal employment-discrimination cases. (Mine also included First Amendment issues.) In my case, Judge William M. Acker II flagrantly violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Eleventh Circuit case law by considering summary judgment before any discovery was conducted. In fact, Acker never allowed any discovery in the case, which simply cannot be done under black-letter law. In Carol's case, Infinity's lawyers never responded to key discovery requests, especially those that would have shown she was treated differently than her "comparators,'' those Infinity employees who were similarly situated to her in the work environment. Infinity's lawyers said they "were going to" provide the requested information, but they never did it, and Judge T. Michael Putman let them get away with it;
* He knows who arranged to have Shelby County deputies kidnap me and throw me in jail for five months, making me the only U.S. journalist since 2006 to be incarcerated;
* He knows who caused our home of 25 years to be stolen out from under us via a likely wrongful foreclosure;
* He knows who arranged for Carol and me to be unlawfully evicted in September 2015 here in Missouri, with an assault rifle aimed at me and a deputy brutalizing Carol and leaving her with a broken left arm.
Now. let's consider what Hubbard likely knows about events that do not involve Carol or me. This is nowhere near a comprehensive list, by the way:
* He knows that then Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor was assigned (by Karl Rove?) to investigate Don Siegelman before the Democratic governor's fanny had barely touched his chair in 1999;
* He knows how millions of laundered dollars made their way from Indian gaming interests in Mississippi to help "defeat" Siegelman in the 2002 governor's race against Riley;
* He knows who arranged to steal the 2002 election, with Siegelman votes disappearing overnight in Baldwin County, and how it was done;
* He knows how certain GOP kingpins (Karl Rove? Bill Canary?) arranged for a bogus prosecution of Siegelman, and who ensured that corrupt federal judge and Bush appointee Mark Fuller got the case;
* He knows who arranged for the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to repeatedly violate its own precedents to ensure that at least some of the Siegelman convictions would be upheld;
* He knows who arranged for Riley and current AG Luther Strange to develop a pipeline to the Alabama Supreme Court, resulting in repeated dubious rulings against VictoryLand, Country Crossing, and other non-Indian gaming facilities.
Does Mike Hubbard know what happened to some, or all, of these individuals? Does he know about some, or all, of the other events mentioned above? If he does -- and he failed to report it to authorities and took steps to conceal it, he might have committed "misprision of a felony," a crime described at 18 U.S. Code 4:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Noor Salman, the wife of Orlando shooter Omar Mateen, could face misprision charges if an investigation shows she knew her husband was about to commit an act of violence and failed to notify authorities.
The 12 counts for which Mike Hubbard was convicted under the ethics law certainly are serious matters. But they might seem relatively mundane if details become known about conversations Hubbard and Bob Riley have had over the years.
Siegelman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama, remains in federal prison at Oakdale, Louisiana, because of his conviction in a case that involved no personal benefit to him, no evidence of an illegal "quid pro quo" agreement with Scrushy, and no sign that Scrushy wanted Siegelman to take "official action" that might benefit him.
With all that in mind, it's easy to understand why Siegelman might show disdain for Monday's SCOTUS ruling in McDonnell, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. Dana Siegelman Kinkade, the former governor's daughter, released the following statement yesterday:
Dad's response to McDonnell Case Ruling:
"I would have been better off if the HealthSouth CEO had given me a Rolex and a Ferrari NOT to appoint him to the non-paying C.O.N. board on which I wanted him to serve and to which he begged me not to appoint him."
In the government's case against former Alabama's Governor Don E. Siegelman and HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, there was no quid pro quo much less an express one. There was no personal benefit or self-enrichment scheme. Richard Scrushy, the CEO of Fortune 500 HealthSouth, spent five years in prison because the judge told the jury could infer or imply a corrupt agreement because a campaign contribution to a ballot initiative referendum could be considered something of value to to the Governor because he advocated the referendum's approval by the voters.
"I feel sure Mr. Scrushy would have gladly paid me not to reappoint him to his 4th four year term to a time-consuming board." The McDonald ruling does nothing to answer George F. Will's call:
"Until the court clarifies what constitutes quid pro quo political corruption, Americans engage in politics at their peril because prosecutors have dangerous discretion to criminalize politics."Wash Post, 2/12/12
Don E. Siegelman
Governor of Alabama, 1999-2003
I outlined yesterday three pathways to freedom that the McDonnell ruling might provide for Siegelman. And I still think that might be possible. But our followup research revealed a legal issue that could mean McDonnell doesn't offer much for Siegelman.
America's federal bribery laws are a confusing mishmash, covered under several different statutes, written in language that is largely unintelligible. In fact, the statutes are so confusing that courts often turn to case law to determine what is, and is not, illegal.
The Siegelman case, for example, largely was governed by McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991). He and Scrushy were prosecuted under 18 U.S. Code 666, which is known as the "federal funds bribery" statute and generally applies to cases involving campaign contributions. (Scrushy's donation to help pay down debt for the Alabama Democratic Party, after Siegelman's lottery proposal had been defeated, was considered a campaign contribution.)
McDonnell, however, was prosecuted under 18 U.S. Code 201, a general bribery statute that usually does not involve campaign contributions. On the case-law side, McDonnell invoked Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992), which tends to involve bribery outside the context of a campaign contribution.
The bottom line: In Siegelman, Scrushy gave a campaign contribution. In McDonnell, constituent Jonny Williams showered McDonnell and his wife with gifts, which went directly to them, but he apparently did not make a campaign contribution. That means the two cases are covered by different law -- Siegelman is covered by the 666 statute and the McCormick case; McDonnell is covered by the 201 statute and the Evans case.
That might not be good news for Siegelman and Scrushy. If they seek review based on McDonnell, a federal judge easily could rule, "These cases present very different facts. Siegelman was about a campaign contribution, and McDonnell was not. Siegelman was governed by 666 and McCormick, while McDonnell was governed by 201 and Evans. We have different facts and different law -- and that means the Siegelman defendants can receive no relief from McDonnell."
There is a flip side to that, however. Both cases were prosecuted under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S. Code 1951, so that might give Siegelman lawyers an avenue to argue that the new definition of "official act" outlined in McDonnell should apply to Siegelman.
|Pam Bondi and Donald Trump|
How did such an explosive story, which could torpedo Trump's presidential bid, get started? In 2013, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared set to join the New York AG's office in a lawsuit against Trump University. But then, Bondi personally solicited a campaign contribution from Donald Trump, and when a $25,000 check appeared . . . whoosh, Florida no longer was interested in pursuing the Trump University case.
The Sunshine State's press has covered the story with the kind of zeal you rarely see from Alabama's somnolent mainstream media (MSM). That's understandable, given that the story reeks of the kind of "quid pro quo" that could amount to federal-funds bribery, the statute upon which the Don Siegelman case largely was built in Alabama.
The story has gained new traction now that Trump has become the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee and -- surprise -- Bondi has endorsed him.
An Associated Press story, dated June 7, 2016, provides details:
Florida's attorney general personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump around the same time her office deliberated joining an investigation of alleged fraud at Trump University and its affiliates.
The new disclosure from Attorney General Pam Bondi's spokesman to The Associated Press on Monday provides additional details around the unusual circumstances of Trump's $25,000 donation to Bondi.
The money came from a Trump family foundation in apparent violation of rules surrounding political activities by charities. A political group backing Bondi's re-election, called And Justice for All, reported receiving the check Sept. 17, 2013 — four days after Bondi's office publicly announced she was considering joining a New York state probe of Trump University's activities, according to a 2013 report in the Orlando Sentinel.
After the check came in, Bondi's office nixed suing Trump, citing insufficient grounds to proceed.
Trump has more or less admitted on the campaign trail that he has little concern about federal bribery statutes. Writes AP:
The timing of the donation by Trump is notable because the now presumptive Republican presidential nominee has said he expects and receives favors from politicians to whom he gives money.
"When I want something I get it," Trump said at an Iowa rally in January. "When I call, they kiss my ass. It's true."
Florida Democrats are calling for an investigation, according to a recent report from Gray Rohrer at the Orlando Sentinel, but those efforts have yet to prove fruitful. Writes Rohrer:
Even as another Democratic state lawmaker called for an investigation of a campaign donation given by Donald Trump to Attorney General Pam Bondi, questions arose Wednesday about who would conduct such a probe.
State Sen. Dwight Bullard, D-Miami, wrote to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking the Department of Justice to look into the matter.
"There have been many questions surrounding claims of fraud at Trump University," Bullard stated. "There is even a greater concern of whether a quid pro quo exists within the office for favorable treatment in exchange for campaign assistance."
But no one, so far, is heeding calls for an investigation.
In a not-so-shocking development, politics appears to be standing in the way of justice. Writes Rohrer:
Bondi's fellow Republicans control the Legislature and are unlikely to set up an independent panel to look into the matter. Gov. Rick Scott has referred reporters' questions to the Trump campaign.
There are few other avenues to investigate Florida's top law enforcement official. . . .
Bondi's office did not return calls for comment from the Orlando Sentinel on Tuesday or Wednesday. On Tuesday she provided a statement to some news outlets saying stories suggesting a quid pro quo between the donation and the decision not to investigate were "misleading."
A Massachusetts lawyer named Whitfield Larrabee does not intend to let the story slide into the good night. From a report at Raw Story:
Larrabee says he believes Bondi dropped the case as quid pro quo in return for receiving the money.
“If it looks like a bribe and quacks like a bribe, I think it’s a bribe,” Larrabee told the [Orlando] Sentinel.
His complaint, provided to the Sentinel, states, “Evidence strongly indicates that Bondi’s decision not to initiate or participate in litigation against Trump University was given in exchange for Trump’s contribution based on the short time period between the receipt of the political contribution and the announcement of Bondi’s decision not to participate in the New York litigation.”
How do Alabama and Jessica M. Garrison enter the picture? Until January of this year, the Birmingham-based Garrison was senior advisor to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and the affiliated Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF). Before that, she was executive director of RAGA and President of (RLDF). Why has Garrison backed away from RAGA and its affilated groups? That's a post for another day, but it's curious that Bondi is a major figure in RAGA -- and she has been at the heart of several controversies.
In fact, a major part of Garrison's job at RAGA apparently was to defend Bondi, who serves on the organization's executive committee as immediate past chair.
When Bondi was criticized in the Florida press for her cozy relationship with out-of-state lobbyists and corporate lawyers, Garrison came to her defense:
Jessica Medeiros Garrison, executive director for the Republican Attorneys General Association, called it "absurd" when asked about The New York Times reporting, which made it appear there is a quid pro quo involving corporations and attorneys general.
"Like all national political organizations, RAGA pays for expenses for its member attorneys general that attend meetings to help with national fundraising," Garrison said in an email Wednesday. "RAGA does this in full compliance with federal and state laws that regulate fundraising and political activity for RAGA and its member attorneys general."
Did Garrison break ties with RAGA earlier this year because she knew the Trump-Bondi story was a bombshell that could explode at any moment? If someone heeds calls for an investigation of the matter, perhaps we will find out.
Whitfield Larrabee, of Massachusetts, might be just the guy to do it.
Before you searching always remember to change your IP adress to not be followed!
PROTECT YOURSELF & SUPPORT US! Purchase a VPN Today!