Scott Horton, a lawyer with an eye for news -- who produced keen reporting on the Don Siegelman case -- exposes Elon Musk's ties to Putin; Horton's insights on my UAB termination speak to attacks on a free press

(VOA)

The FBI for years tracked Elon Musk's interactions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but the bureau kept what they learned from the public, ensuring voters would know nothing about it when they went to the polls last November 5 and gave Donald Trump a victory over Democrat Kamala Harris, including wins in seven swing states. Despite spending almost all of his professional life on the East Coast, Trump even won the western states of Arizona and Nevada, right next door to Harris' home state of California. It was a stunning performance that almost certainly would not have happened without the assistance of Musk, who endorsed Trump in July 2024, shortly after an alleged assassination attempt of the candidate in Butler, PA. 

Robert Scott Horton, who long has been one of our most articulate voices on matters of justice in the United States and beyond, writes at his Facebook page that Americans had a vested interest in knowing about Musk's connections to Putin because the billionaire -- reportedly worth $335.2 billion (per Forbes) and long touted as the world's richest person -- has made a habit of parroting Kremlin talking points, Horton writes:

As we will shortly learn, for years the FBI tracked Elon Musk's nefarious dealings with Vladimir Putin and his agents and decided to do nothing whatsoever about it. Indeed, they decided to keep what they learned secret, so that American voters knew nothing about it when they went to the polls in 2024. "For years, he has increasingly regurgitated Kremlin talking points, especially regarding Ukraine. In late 2022, with Russian troops starting to be pushed out of much of eastern Ukraine, Musk began broadcasting Kremlin talking points to halt Ukrainian advances. He started peddling Russian propaganda claims that Ukrainian territories like Crimea are “absolutely seen as a core part of Russia by Russia”—and that Russia would resort to nuclear war if Crimea was threatened by Kyiv. He further peddled a supposed “peace plan” that would not only return Ukraine to neutrality—the same neutrality Ukraine enjoyed when Russia first invaded in 2014—but further force Ukraine to give up its claims to Crimea.

Does Horton know what he's talking about? He's had a long and distinguished career in law, journalism, and academia, with an emphasis on human rights. In Alabama he is well known for his extensive reporting on the political prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman during the George W. Bush administration. (Also see The Pork Barrel World of Judge Mark Fuller, Judge Fuller: A Siegelman Grudge Match? and 2003 Affidavit Raises More Serious Questions About Siegelman Judge.)

Horton earned his J.D. at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin. He worked at two New York-based law firms (Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, along with DLA Piper in London). He was a lecturer at Columbia University and a contributing editor at Harper's Magazine.

I should note that I have first-hand experience with how Scott Horton handles a sensitive story. On Dec. 31, 2008, he reported at Harper's about my unlawful termination at UAB (For more details on what happened to me at UAB, please see this link, and this link.) Under the headline "The Argus-Eyed University," Horton wrote about my dreadful experience in the workplace with professionalism and care.

While some official types at UAB probably did not care for the story, Horton was fair to everyone involved. The following paragraphs are examples of how Horton approached his work:

We could hardly end 2008 without delivering a George Orwell Honorable Mention to the University of Alabama at Birmingham for its truly extraordinary “acceptable use” policy on employee Internet use. There’s nothing strange about the language of the policy–in fact it’s pedestrian (the Internet “may not be used for any activity which is destructive, disruptive, or illegal” it says). But how the university interprets and applies this prohibition might surprise an observer–unless, of course, the observer is attuned to the peculiarities of Alabama politics.

Case in point: The university recently fired Roger Shuler, a long-time public relations employee who blogs on legal developments under the moniker “the Legal Schnauzer,” apparently expressing concern in a grievance hearing over the fact that he regularly visited and read Harper’s. After The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the firing, the university posted a credibility-straining assertion that the firing was “based solely on work performance.” Also according to the Chronicle:

The university told The Raw Story that Mr. Shuler had not been fired for blogging, but it would not comment further. In June an appeals committee at the university voted to overturn Mr. Shuler’s dismissal. But he says the university recently told him that, while he could be rehired, he would not get his former job back.

Shuler says the decision to fire him was based on the political content of his blog posts, which were critical of Alabama Governor Bob Riley and one of his key allies, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. According to Shuler, the firing occurred only a few months after one of Riley’s political cronies threatened him with the loss of his job because of his blogging. Indeed, to the university’s chagrin, his final review session was taped, and portions which have now been published suggest that the primary concern of his reviewers was that he was publicly critical of the state’s political powers.

That is spot-on accurate and fair to everyone involved. If some folks at UAB didn't like it, well, that's because they were lying when they said I was fired because of my work performance. Anita Bonasera, the university's own HR specialist, admitted to me -- in a phone conversation I recorded -- that I was fired because of my blog, especially my reporting on the Siegelman case. You can read the relevant parts of the transcript and view a video that features audio of the Bonasera phone call at this link. Horton portrayed UAB's spokespeople as liars, and that is exactly what they are.

My main point: Scott Horton is a bright, talented guy and a world-class journalist and lawyer. When he writes about Elon Musk -- probably the most controversial person on the planet right now -- the public would be wise to pay attention. Horton states in clear, straightforward language that Musk is a deceptive individual, particularly when it comes to the interests of Vladimir Putin:

In late 2022, with Russian troops starting to be pushed out of much of eastern Ukraine, Musk began broadcasting Kremlin talking points to halt Ukrainian advances. He started peddling Russian propaganda claims that Ukrainian territories like Crimea are “absolutely seen as a core part of Russia by Russia”—and that Russia would resort to nuclear war if Crimea was threatened by Kyiv. He further peddled a supposed “peace plan” that would not only return Ukraine to neutrality—the same neutrality Ukraine enjoyed when Russia first invaded in 2014—but further force Ukraine to give up its claims to Crimea.

All of it added up to a sudden pro-Kremlin shift in Musk’s public rhetoric—and a complete shift away from the backing for Ukraine he’d initially exhibited. For those familiar with the region and Russian politics, Musk’s additional calls to have Ukrainian water flow to the peninsula, while also dubbing Ukraine’s claims to Crimea as “Khruschev’s mistake,” were immediate red flags, directly parroting Kremlin rhetoric. “It’s very clear that Elon Musk is transmitting a message for Putin,” Russia expert Fiona Hill said at the time. Soon thereafter, we learned that Musk had specifically blocked a Ukrainian military mission from targeting the peninsula, with Musk waffling in the face of Russian nuclear threats—arguably the only time Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling has actually worked.

 

Now we know how, and why, Musk suddenly lurched toward supporting Putin—and why he’s continued down that path since. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Musk has spoken multiple times, including this year, with high-level Russian officials—including Putin. In addition to pushing the kinds of talking points Musk then regurgitated, the Kremlin further encouraged Musk to block his Starlink satellites from operating over Taiwan, “as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping.”

 

Former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy has served his time in prison, but he is launching an inquiry to reverse his conviction and shine light on rogue prosecutors who put innocent people behind bars

Richard Scrushy and attorney Tommy Gallion (left) (CBS 42)

In September 2020, the National Registry of Exonerations (NRE) issued a report about the role of official misconduct in the conviction of innocent people. What amounts to an exoneration? The NRE report includes this statement:

We classify a case as an “exoneration” if a person who was convicted of a crime is officially and completely cleared based on new evidence of innocence. . . . The report is limited to misconduct by government officials that contributed to the false convictions of defendants who were later exonerated—misconduct that distorts the evidence used to determine guilt or innocence. Concretely, that means misconduct that produces unreliable, misleading or false evidence of guilt, or that conceals, distorts or undercuts true evidence of innocence.

What kind of government misconduct draws the attention of the NRE? Here is a description from the report:

The report organizes the myriad types of misconduct into five general categories, roughly in the chronological order of a criminal case, from initial investigation to conviction: (1) Witness Tampering; (2) Misconduct in Interrogations of Suspects; (3) Fabricating Evidence; (4) Concealing Exculpatory Evidence; (5) Misconduct at Trial.

Most of the misconduct we discuss was committed by police officers and by prosecutors.

Do those words hit home for Richard M. Scrushy? The former chairman and CEO of Birmingham-based HealthSouth Corporation (now Encompass Health) stood in front of the Frank M. Johnson Jr.  Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Montgomery yesterday and announced that he has launched a personal investigation, which he hopes will result in his 2006 conviction, along with that of former Governor Don Siegelman, being reversed. 

Along with attorney Tommy Gallion, Scrushy said he has uncovered evidence that appears to match at least four of the five categories outlined above -- with No. 3, Fabricating Evidence, being the only one that might not be present -- yet. Scrushy, however, was quick to tell the assembled friends, family, and members of the press: "The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence that caused the wrongful convictions and imprisonment of Don Siegelman and me. This is unconstitutional and criminal. At trial, Judge (Mark) Fuller told prosecutors they had to turn over all discoverable information, but the prosecutors said, "We don't have any more." We knew then they had lied to the judge, but now we have the evidence to prove it. If we had received the documents we were supposed to get, it would have changed the outcome of the trial. It resulted in denial of due process. The prosecution was corrupt, and the convictions should be reversed. I've lived under a black cloud for 20 years, and I want this off of me." 

 In Scrushy's case he gave "honorable mention" for unethical behavior to two unidentified "horrible plaintiffs' attorneys" who won't leave me alone." (Hint: The two attorneys have connections to a former Republican Alabama governor of particularly ill repute.). Also, the lawyers stood to make a windfall from their share of attorney fees in a lawsuit against HealthSouth and related entities. As of March 31, 2009, Ernst & Young had made a $109-million payment toward settling, while HealthSouth officers and directors had settled for $445 million. That means at least $554 million was waiting to be dispersed to multiple shareholders and plaintiffs' attorneys. The case file at that time included almost 1,600 documents, and roughly 150 plaintiffs' lawyers. That's a lot of hands in a pie overflowing with attorney fees.

Documents show that the two lawyers were named co-liaison counsel, and our research indicates they were likely to take a much bigger chunk of the pie than most of the lawyers in the case. One of the lawyers was involved in the HealthSouth civil case while also representing Don Siegelman, Scrushy's co-defendant in the criminal case. Does that sound like a conflict of interest? No wonder Scrushy considers these guys to be "horrible." 

On June 29, 2006, Scrushy was convicted of giving Siegelman $500,000 for an appointment to the state's certificate of need board, which regulated health-care companies. At the time, Scrushy was CEO of HealthSouth, a billion-dollar health-care corporation -- one of three such companies he founded, including a Fortune 500 company.

The court convicted Scrushy on six counts, including bribery, conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, and four counts of honest services wire fraud. He was given a $150,000 fine and a sentence of seven years in federal prison. He served almost five years of that sentence.

Siegelman was convicted on seven counts, including bribery, conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, four counts of honest services wire fraud, and obstruction of justice. He was given a $50,000 fine and a seven-year sentence.

Scrushy alleges that the government met with as many as 20 potential witnesses in his case, but only disclosed contact with one witness who testified. By law, the prosecution must disclose all evidence before trial. There is evidence of "... corruption, widespread fraud, lawfare and weaponization of the DOJ in the politically motivated prosecution brought against me," Scrushy said.

That one witness was Nick Bailey, who provided the government with damaging testimony against the defendants but since has recanted. An employer, Tuscaloosa businessman Stan Pate, later stated prosecutors had intimidated Bailey about an alleged sex scandal, coercing him to provide testimony in a form they desired.

"Nick bailey was the only witness to testify against me," Scrushy said. "He has apologized, and we talk regularly. There was no check, no quid pro quo (as required by controlling case law in McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991). They only had one witness against me."

What was it like for Scrushy to go from CEO to federal inmate? Harsh does not seem to adequately describe it. "They took us out of the courthouse in chains and put us in the federal pen in Atlanta, which is the most awful place you can imagine. We were put in solitary confinement and placed behind a glass shield, as if we were hardened criminals. They ultimately sent me 600 miles to Texas. 

Scrushy became emotional when talking about how the incarceration affected his family. “My little girl right here was 4-years-old, Gracie, when they put me in chains and pulled her out of my arms,” Scrushy said as he pointed to his daughter who accompanied him to the press conference. “He (1 of Scrushy’s sons also in attendance) was 2-years-old, they sent me off to prison, 5 years they locked me up. It states, if you read the information, they’re supposed to put me within 500 miles of my home. They sent me over 600 miles away to Texas, that was wrong.”

Scrushy and Gallion plan to file a motion to vacate the conviction, and Scrushy hopes the Trump administration, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, will see his case as an injustice that demands correction.

A reporter asked why Scrushy is pushing for justice at this point, given that he already has served his sentence. "What do you want to come from this?" was the question.

"I've served my time, but it has affected my family, my children, and it's affected my ability to earn a living. I served on that health-care board under three governors. I gave Siegelman one year, and I got off. I didn't like being on that board because it took too much of my time. Also, people don't want to deal with a felon. They are very careful about it, and I want to get out from under that cloud.

"It’s important because of my family. My children are living a life with a cloud over them that their dad was a federal criminal. That’s a lie. That needs to be overturned. It’s affected my ability to earn money, to make a living. That needs to be off of me. Nobody wants to die with some kind of black cloud and some kind of lie on them. I don’t want that marking on my back because it’s just not true.”

"Over 15-20 years, I built three billion-dollar companies, two of them were Fortune 500 companies. I don't know too many people who have done that, yet I haven't been able to work since the conviction here. I'm not guilty on all the HealthSouth charges (in a case of alleged accounting fraud, brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; Scrushy was charged in 2003, and the trial was held in Birmingham). They started with 85 counts and got it down to 36. I was found not guilty on all 36. Many believe that motivated the federal government to come after me again, and I believe that's probably true. I think they said, "Let's get him with Don Siegelman."

As for Siegelman, he did not attend the press conference, but Scrushy said the former governor is supportive of his actions. Siegelman released the following statement yesterday:

The exculpatory evidence to which Richard Scrushy referred in his news conference was known by the Department of Justice and should have been released at the same time U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder reversed the conviction of Republican U.S. Senator Ted Stevens based on prosecutorial misconduct.

Eric Holder’s Deputy, David Margolis, was reported as having said: “The way DOJ managed this case (the Scrushy/Siegelman case), if brought to light, would do real harm to the reputation of the department.” (Washington Spectator, a project of The Public Concern Foundation, March 8, 2016; also, see article at Project On Government Oversight [POGO], Dec. 11, 2014.)

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman

A reporter asked Scrushy what he would say to Pam Bondi if he gets a chance to meet with her. "I would tell her that I want a full investigation, and I want you to vacate my conviction,  and the people who did this to my family and me need to face the consequences."

In a press release, Scrushy made it clear he is fighting not only for his own case, but also for others who have run afoul of rogue prosecutors. He focused on these words under the title "Information concerning Corruption of Prosecutors":

The National Registry of Exonerations lists 3,593 full exonerations since 1989. The registry
published a September 1, 2020, article titled, “Government Misconduct and Convicting the
Innocent.” The article found that: (1) official misconduct contributed to the false convictions of 54% of defendants who were later exonerated; (2) concealing exculpatory evidence was the most common type of misconduct and it occurred in 44% of exonerations; (3) prosecutors committed the misconduct in 30% of the cases and the prosecutors were responsible for most of the concealing of exculpatory evidence and misconduct at trial, and a substantial amount of witness tampering. (4) exonerations in federal white-collar crimes are the most common; accounting for 41% of exonerations, with the overwhelming majority of misconduct committed by prosecutors for withholding exculpatory evidence in which
such evidence was concealed. 

Clueless about the law and hungry for revenge, Donald Trump drives the DOJ toward a cliff we haven't seen since the days of Richard Nixon and Watergate

Donald Trump and Pam Bondi (Getty)

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) might be heading into its deepest period of crisis since the days of Richard Nixon, according to a report at Associated Press (AP). Under the "direction" of Donald Trump, who lacks the intellectual heft and the sturdy spine needed to oversee the justice apparatus of the world's foremost democracy, the DOJ appears to be spiraling into chaos -- and Trump has not even been in office for one month.

The department has been awash in controversy since Trump apparently pressured top officials last week to dismiss a criminal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The Adams case is emitting the stench of an unlawful quid pro quo, a term that became well known around the country when Karl Rove reportedly launched a baseless criminal case against Alabama's Democratic Governor Don Siegelman during the George W. Bush administration -- mainly, it seems, because Republicans could not figure out how to beat Siegelman at the ballot box. Perhaps figuring Siegelman would be less of a headache if he and codefendant Richard Scrushy were behind bars, the Bushies arranged for that to happen, with the assistance of former federal judge Mark Fuller (a Bush appointee,  who had ties to Bush-era criminals Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, plus slimy GOP Governor Bob Riley, who was Siegelman's chief political rival.  and wound up being forced off the bench after pleading guilty to beating his wife in an Atlanta hotel room.) How low did Rove go? He even acted like a jackass toward Siegelman's daughter, Dana, when the two ran into each other at the Democratic National Convention.

As for Donald Trump, his cluelessness about matters of law is driving the DOJ around some dangerous curves. The Eric Adams matter has been the source of heavy and unflattering news coverage in recent days. But Trump's struggles with justice issues go way beyond the Adams case. Here are two persistent problems that seem to be digging a hole for the president:

1. Criminal prosecutions must be based on a finding of probable cause, that an offense has been committed, and the accused committed it. Any attempt to prosecute a defendant based on Donald Trump's yearnings for revenge, and not probable cause, is unlawful. Let's consider our post dated 4/9/24 under the headline "Donald Trump's plot to prosecute Joe Biden without probable cause is based on a lie and ignorance, as MSNBC analyst Joyce White Vance makes clear":

Donald Trump and his allies are plotting to prosecute President Joe Biden if Trump wins the November election, according to a report from Axios. After months of Congressional inquiries, no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden has surfaced, so it is unclear what would form the basis of a Trump-fueled prosecution. But this much appears to be clear: Trump apparently wants to prosecute Biden because he believes Biden had him prosecuted -- even though Trump has offered no evidence to support that claim. One prominent legal analyst has stated that Biden did not have Trump prosecuted and could not have done so. Those matters come down to grand jurors.

Also, the Axios report suggests Trump has no problem violating roughly 40 years of U.S. policy that holds the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is to operate independently of the White House -- that presidents are not prosecutors, and they are to be excluded from decisions to charge or not charge suspected wrongdoers. . . . 

Almost every issue raised in the Axios article grows from the idea that Joe Biden is having Trump prosecuted. In Trump's brain, that has to be true because Trump cannot be responsible for anything that goes wrong. But this is a lie, one Trump apparently is convinced his MAGA followers are gullible enough to believe. But here is the truth, as stated by MSNBC legal analyst and former Alabama U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance, who wrote in a recent tweet:

"Joe Biden didn't indict Trump. Prosecutors must go before a grand jury, made up of citizens, including Republicans & Democrats. These citizens hear evidence & vote on whether a defendant should be charged. Different grand juries have now done that with Trump 91 times."

2. Trump can't resist exerting demands on the DOJ, mainly because he is desperate to extract revenge on his perceived political opponents. But that runs contrary to longstanding U.S. policy, as spelled out in the DOJ's Justice Manual. This is from Section 1-8.600 - Communication with the White House:

In order to promote and protect the norms of Departmental independence and integrity in making decisions regarding criminal and civil law enforcement, while at the same time preserving the President’s ability to perform his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” the Justice Department will not advise the White House concerning pending or contemplated criminal or civil law enforcement investigations or cases unless doing so is important for the performance of the President’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement perspective.

Is that how the White House and the DOJ are operating in the Trump administration? The answer appears to be no, as the AP's Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer report:

Pam Bondi had insisted at her Senate confirmation hearing that as attorney general, her Justice Department would not “play politics.”

Yet in the month since the Trump administration took over the building, a succession of actions has raised concerns the department is doing exactly that.

Top officials have demanded the names of thousands of FBI agents who investigated the Capitol riot, sued a state attorney general who had won a massive fraud verdict against Donald Trump before the 2024 election, and ordered the dismissal of a criminal case against New York Mayor Eric Adams by saying the charges had handicapped the Democrat’s ability to partner in the Republican administration’s fight against illegal immigration.

Even for a department that has endured its share of scandals, the moves have produced upheaval not seen in decades, tested its independence and rattled the foundations of an institution that has long prided itself on being driven solely by facts, evidence and the law. As firings and resignations mount, the unrest raises the question of whether a president who raged against his own Justice Department during his first term can succeed in bending it to his will in his second.

“We have seen now a punishing ruthlessness that acting department leadership and the attorney general are bringing to essentially subjugate the workforce to the wishes and demands of the administration, even when it’s obvious” that some of the decisions have all the signs “of corrupting the criminal justice system,” said retired federal prosecutor David Laufman, a senior department official across Democratic and Republican administrations.

He spoke not long after Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor, Danielle Sassoon, resigned in protest following a directive from Emil Bove, the Justice Department’s acting No. 2 official, to dismiss the case against Adams.

In a letter foreshadowing her decision, Sassoon accused the department of acceding to a “quid pro quo” — dropping the case to ensure Adams’ help with Trump’s immigration agenda. Though a Democrat, Adams had for months positioned himself as eager to aid the administration’s effort in America’s largest city, even meeting privately with Trump at Trump’s Florida estate just days before the Republican took office. 

Multiple high-ranking officials who oversaw the Justice Department’s public integrity section, which prosecutes corruption cases, joined Sassoon in resigning.  

For those of us who lived through the '70s, all of that sounds positively Nixonian. But count me as one who is convinced Trump is capable of birthing a scandal that would make Watergate pale in scope and depravity. In fact, I would not be surprised if we already are in the early stages of such a scandal. Tucker and Richer write:

On Friday, a prosecutor involved in the Adams case, Hagan Scotten, became at least the seventh person to quit in the standoff, telling Bove in a letter that it would take a “fool” or a “coward” to meet his demand to drop the charges. (Bove and department lawyers in Washington ultimately filed paperwork Friday night to end the case).

“Even though there may not be more resignations, a clear message has been sent about the objectives and the expectations of the department,” said Alberto Gonzales, who served as attorney general under Republican President George W. Bush until his 2007 resignation in the wake of the dismissal of several U.S. attorneys.

“The purpose of the department is to ensure that our laws are carried out, that those who engage in criminal wrongdoing are prosecuted and punished,” Gonzales said. And to some it may appear “that if you have some kind of relationship with the White House, there may not be consequences for doing something that ordinary Americans engaged in similar conduct would be punished.” 

Bove, a former New York federal prosecutor himself who represented Trump in his criminal cases, pointedly made no assessment about the legal merits of the case against Adams. Bove cited political reasons, including the timing of the charges months before Adams’ presumed re-election campaign and the restrictions the case had placed on the mayor’s ability to fight illegal immigration and violent crime.

In a letter to Sassoon, Bove said case prosecutors would be subject to internal investigations.

Bondi defended the decision to drop the case, asserting in a Fox News interview Friday that Adams was targeted after he criticized the Biden administration’s immigration policies.

Do news reports support the assertions of Bondi and Bove regarding the Biden administration? If so, they are well hidden. This is from an account NPR: 

The Justice Department memo calling for charges against Adams to be dropped doesn't question the facts or merits of the case.

Instead it lays out two political reasons for the corruption case to be dropped. First, it echoes an unsubstantiated claim that former President Joe Biden and his administration may have used the prosecution to punish Adams, a fellow Democrat, for publicly criticizing Biden's immigration policies.

"It cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams criticized the prior administration's immigration policies before the charges were filed, and the former U.S. Attorney's public actions created appearances of impropriety," the memo said.

No evidence of the Biden team interfering in DOJ prosecutorial decisions was offered to support that assertion. In the memo, DOJ officials also said the case, if allowed to move forward, would hinder Adams from devoting his full attention to one of Trump's top policy initiatives: curbing "illegal immigration and violent crime" in New York City.

Adams has signaled growing openness to partnering with Trump administration officials on immigration enforcement in the city and has reportedly ordered NYC officials to avoid criticizing Trump or his policies.

Some critics, including city and state officials running against Adams in the mayor's race, condemned the DOJ move to drop charges and voiced alarm at growing ties between Adams and the Trump team.

Posting on social media, New York City comptroller Brad Lander blasted what he called "Adams' effort to get a pardon for his pay-to-play charges."

"Eric Adams sold out New Yorkers to buy his own freedom," wrote New York state Sen. Jessica Ramos on X. "Donald Trump may think this buys him access to terrorize our communities, but New Yorkers always stand up for one another."

It's unclear how this move by the DOJ will affect investigations and criminal cases against a wide array of Adams' political allies, donors and former members of his administrations. 

Bryan Anderson used big money and white privilege to build Southern Company's influence machine, with Alabama's Richard Shelby as a prominent beneficiary

Bryan Anderson (right), with CEO Tom Fanning and Sen. Lindsey Graham

 

Bryan D. Anderson, a public-affairs executive at The Coca-Cola Company in the 1990s, was a central figure in a racial-discrimination lawsuit brought by Black employees that resulted in a $192-million settlement in 2001 -- at the time, the largest settlement of its kind in the nation. Anderson reportedly played a significant role in creating the hostile work culture that led to the lawsuit. Being tied to such a massive and historic payout might have been a career killer for many execs. But Anderson simply moved to another Atlanta-based corporate titan -- Southern Company, the nation's second largest utility -- and his dubious views on matters of race apparently fit right in with his new employer.

Anderson has gone on to build a "political fortress" in Washington, D.C., where the "capturing" of influential political figures, especially those from the South, is a form of conducting business. One such politician is retired U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), whose mastery of pork-barrel politics made him an extremely wealthy public servant -- a "winner," you might say, in the game of D.C. palm-greasing. The "losers," it appears, are Southern Company's Black ratepayers, who make up a significant portion of the customer base for a firm that is openly hostile to their social and economic interests.

How are Bryan Anderson and Richard Shelby joined at the hip in this "winner takes all" game of racial insensitivity? That is described in a post today at DonaldWatkins.com, under the headline "Bryan D. Anderson: The Southern Company’s Chief Manipulator in Washington." Writes longtime Alabama attorney and entrepreneur Donald Watkins:

Bryan Anderson’s influence peddling facilitates and enhances the Southern Company’s ability to rip off its 9 million customers, with impunity.

Anderson has built an impenetrable political fortress for the Southern Company in Washington. From this fortress, the Southern Company rewards its political friends, attacks its critics, and "captures and controls" the White House, key members of Congress, and various federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Department of Energy, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency, etc.) that impact the company's future.

Bryan Anderson uses his puppet-master skills, together with the Southern Company's immense financial resources and entrenched Washington political relationships, to manipulate the federal bureaucracy into advancing and protecting the Southern Company's corporate interests, as dictated by the company to a bevy of greedy politicians and hapless bureaucrats.

Perhaps the No. 1 beneficiary of The Southern Company's influence-peddling game is Alabama's Richard Shelby, Watkins reports:

The Southern Company “buys” or “rents” Democrats and Republicans, alike. Typically, these politicians are “for sale” the moment their right hand comes off the swearing-in Bible.

From 1987 to January 2023, Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) was the Southern Company’s main “go to” guy in Washington. Whatever the Southern Company needed from Congress, or the White House, or any federal regulatory agency, Richard Shelby was able to get it.

This is particularly true with respect to political initiatives that: (a) minimized and/or rolled back consumer-protection rights for Southern Company customers, (b) suppressed environmental-protection rights for the Southern Company’s black and poor white customers, and (c) “fixed” potential criminal cases at the Department of Justice and SEC involving the Southern Company, its affiliates, and their top executives.

Richard Shelby was an original COINTELPRO prosecutor in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, during the 1960s who railroaded thousands of Black defendants in the local municipal-court system in a futile effort to crush Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s civil-rights movement in Alabama.

As a U. S. Senator, Richard Shelby was always ready, willing, and able to limit or suppress the rights of Southern Company customers, particularly those federally protected rights that benefited the company’s Black and poor White customers.

Under Bryan Anderson’s leadership, the Southern Company and its affiliates rewarded Richard Shelby handsomely for flexing his political muscle in Washington on the company’s behalf. Anderson's Washington office funneled campaign contributions, other tangible economic benefits, and a dazzling array of corporate perks to Shelby as a reward for his loyalty and unparalleled political support in Washington.

The amount of "gifting" and "love offerings" that Richard Shelby reportedly garnered from parties affiliated with the Southern Company dwarfed the estimated $3 million in undisclosed "gifts" that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received from billionaire Harlan Crow.

Richard Shelby hardly was alone as a captured beneficiary of The Southern Company's largesse. The back-scratching game has affected lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle, Watkins writes:

Richard Shelby’s motto as a Washington politician was simple: “Too much money ain’t never enough.”

Shelby’s ability to get filthy rich from his 44 years as a “public servant,” who was living on a modest government salary as a House member and Senator in Washington, was rivaled only by fellow Southerners, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Shelby never explained the sources and methods of his wealth creation in Washington.

Interestingly, Bill Clinton is one of the operatives in the Southern Company's stable of political "fixers" of criminal cases at Joe Biden's notoriously weak, inept, politicized, and weaponized Department of Justice. Clinton reportedly gets paid $5 million per case to secure non-prosecution agreements from the Department for big Wall Street corporations. These agreements are routinely handed out to big-time Wall Street crooks, no matter which political party is in power.

At the Southern Company’s request, Shelby has also used his considerable political “juice” in Washington to sic a blitzkrieg of federal agencies on critics of the company and/or its affiliates. These agencies dutifully complied with Shelby’s requests, as a matter of political courtesy.

Federal judges in Alabama who received Richard Shelby-sponsored appointments to the federal bench between 1987 and 2022 openly "railroaded" defendants whom Shelby personally targeted for annihilation in their courtrooms. For example, former Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller accommodated such a request when he railroaded former Alabama governor Don Siegelman (a Democrat) and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy in his courtroom during their 2006 trial on phony public corruption charges that were devised, orchestrated, and pushed by White House political operative Karl Rove.

Fuller resigned his judgeship on August 1, 2015 after we exposed his August 10, 2014, arrest in Atlanta for viciously beating his second wife, Kelli, in a drunken rage. As it turned out, Fuller was a serial wife beater.

Bryan Anderson and "de facto" Southern Company CEO Jim Kerr have built what Watkins calls a "political chokehold" on Washington --in part, it seems, because the two men share a thinly veiled antipathy toward people of color, who make up a major segment of their company's customer base. Watkins provides background:

During the 1990s, Bryan D. Anderson had a reputation at The Coca-Cola Company for smiling in the faces of black corporate executives, company employees, and public officials, while reportedly calling them “niggers” behind their backs.

Anderson, a Georgia native, worked at Coca-Cola as Director of Government Relations (1992 to 2002), Assistant Vice President for Government Relations and Public Affairs (2002 to 2004), and Vice President for Government Affairs and Public Relations (2004 to 2010).

During his tenure at The Coca-Cola Company, Anderson reportedly contributed to a corporate culture that was extremely hostile to the company’s Black employees.

This hostile work environment prompted four Black plaintiffs to file a 1999 class action racial discrimination lawsuit against The Coca-Cola Company on behalf of themselves and a class of 2,200 former and current salaried black employees. In general, the lawsuit alleged that Coca-Cola employed racially discriminatory employment practices that limited the professional advancement of Black employees.

The specific allegations in the lawsuit that are relevant to Bryan Anderson's story in this article appear below:

Paragraph 30 of the Complaint: “When a senior-level African-American employee of Coca-Cola moved from Minute Maid to the Company's Atlanta headquarters in 1991, [Coca-Cola CEO M. Douglas] Ivester communicated that the ‘environment’ at the Company ‘isn't very accepting’ and that the African-American employee might hear some racially motivated comments. Ivester went on to say that the Company needed ‘those people’ who might make racist comments.”

Sources who were familiar with the case at the time claimed that Bryan Anderson was one of “those people.”

Paragraph 32 of the Complaint: “For example, in or about 1996 or 1997, one of the few African-American Assistant Vice Presidents attended a meeting in Atlanta with some representatives of the bottling companies. He was the only African-American at the meeting, but high-level Caucasian marketing executives from Coca-Cola were present. The head of marketing of the bottling company for the state of Alabama introduced himself as the "Grand Cyclops" of Alabama. Despite the obvious Ku Klux Klan reference, no Company employee responded to this outrageous comment at the Company meeting. This type of comment highlights the challenges facing African-American employees who are required to work with the bottlers on a regular basis, and who cannot penetrate the glass ceiling or overcome the glass walls because of the connections between these bottling companies and Coca-Cola.”

Sources who knew Bryan Anderson at the time reported that he coddled this brand of racism while working at Coca Cola.

Paragraph 35 of the Complaint: “These discriminatory practices extend to Coca-Cola's relationships with ethnic marketing agencies. Upon information and belief, David Weldon, a Caucasian employee who was then the Vice-President of Advertising, told an African-American advertising agency in or about 1997, words to the effect that ‘I don't hire you to do good advertising, I hire you to do black advertising’ and ‘it's not my fault you are black -- it's yours’."

Sources close to the Southern Company today say that Paragraph 35 fairly reflects the current views of Bryan Anderson on marketing activities and related expenditures within the company. The Southern Company’s Form 10-K for 2022 appears to corroborate this view, as well.

The parties in the Coca-Cola case reached a $192-million settlement that was approved by an Atlanta federal court in June 2001. At the time, the settlement was the largest employment discrimination settlement in the nation’s history.

In addition to the monetary relief, the settlement mandated a sweeping overhaul of Coca-Cola’s hiring and promotional practices, performance evaluation procedures, and employee appeals from adverse performance evaluations and personnel actions.

The lawsuit and resulting settlement overcame a hostile work environment that was reportedly created, in part, by Bryan Anderson and other white Coca-Cola executives of his ilk. The settlement, itself, transformed The Coca-Cola Company into one of the most progressive work environments for racial minorities (and women) in the 21st century.

Anderson continued his climb up the corporate ladder by shifting to The Southern Company, which apparently embraced him --ugly baggage and all. Writes Watkins:

Today, Bryan Anderson is Executive Vice President and President of External Affairs for Southern Company. He Left The Coca-Cola Company and joined the Southern Company in 2010.

Reportedly, Bryan Anderson brought his negative racial views of black executives, black-owned marketing agencies, and black public officials with him to the Southern Company.

We are told that the only blacks Anderson seems to tolerate are the ones he can control and manipulate, regardless of the titles they hold at the Southern Company or offices they occupy in government.

We have confirmed that Chris Womack, the incoming CEO of the Southern Company, is one of these controlled Blacks. For reasons that some Southern Company "insiders" do not fully understand, Womack has prostrated himself to Bryan Anderson's dominion and control.

Bryan Anderson also serves on the Southern Company’s Executive Management Council.

Is Southern Company a "customer friendly" outfit? Not exactly, writes Watkins, especially if you have dark skin:

Additionally, Bryan Anderson is responsible for the Southern Company’s branding, corporate communications, public relations, security policy, and additional external affairs functions.

Since joining Southern Company in 2010, Bryan Anderson has directed the company’s political, policy, and regulatory activities in Washington. He also manages the company’s Washington, D.C., office.

Bryan Anderson’s chief job in Washington is to peddle whatever influence is necessary to ensure that the Southern Company’s 9 million customers have as little consumer protections and environmental-justice rights as is possible. The customers of Mississippi Power Company, Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Southern Gas Company, and the Southern Company’s other service companies pay a lot of money in monthly power and gas bills to support Anderson’s influence peddling in Washington.

An estimated 25% of the Southern Company's 9 million customers are Black. They paid an estimated $15 billion in 2022 in outrageously high electric and gas bills. Yet, the Southern Company has consistently financed politicians on Capitol Hill who eagerly undercut their civil, environmental, and human rights as a course of conduct.

By all accounts, Bryan Anderson is aggressive in his style of influence peddling. No high-ranking Black executive in the Southern Company, including Chris Womack, dares to cross him. Anderson reportedly views Womack as extremely weak and highly compromised in view of Womack's well-known propensity for engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior with the company's female employees and vendors.

Some Southern Company “insiders” liken Bryan Anderson to James Y. “Jim” Kerr, II, the Southern Company’s former Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer, and Chief of Staff to CEO Thomas Fanning. Kerr is an "Old South" racist who now serves as the Chairman, President, and CEO of Southern Gas Company.

Jim Kerr is the top Southern Company executive who was caught on a secret audiotape in 2018 dissing the environmental justice rights of 4,000 mostly black Alabama Power Company customers in the Collegeville, Fairmont, and Harriman Park communities of North Birmingham, Alabama. Kerr smiles in the faces of blacks, but denigrates them in private.

When compared to Jim Kerr, Bryan Anderson is reported to be a smug, Washington-polished, racist on steroids.

What is the current status of "The House that Bryan Anderson and Jim Kerr Built"? You might call it a monument to the power of big money and white privilege. Writes Watkins:

Today, Bryan Anderson operates a Southern Company political and marketing apparatus that has a chokehold on Joe Biden and his Department of Justice. This chokehold reportedly allows the Southern Company to control, stall, and/or kill any enterprise-threatening federal criminal investigations by the Department of Justice and/or the SEC into the Southern Company's business affairs and misconduct.

The political chokehold is a favorite Southern Company weapon of choice. It is routinely deployed at the federal, state, and local levels of government. The chokehold is why no elected or appointed official in federal, state, or local government will oppose a Southern Company political initiative -- no matter how badly the initiative harms the company's 9 million customers.

Finally, the continued presence of Bryan Anderson and Jim Kerr at the Southern Company signals that one of the nation's premier utility companies is a sanctuary for white executives who reportedly harbor furtive racial attitudes towards blacks.

Bryan D. Anderson and Jim Kerr are now the self-appointed and proud guardians of this bastion of "Old South" values in a New York Stock Exchange/Fortune 500 company.

Stay tuned for Part 2 in the Christopher Womack series of investigative articles. It gets much worse for all parties involved.

Lawsuit alleges Alabama Senator Del Marsh solicited bribes to benefit Poarch Creek Indians via gambling bill currenly under consideration in legislature

Del Marsh

 

Three charities in Greene County have filed a lawsuit against Alabama Sen. Del Marsh, accusing him of soliciting bribes to benefit the Poarch Creek Indians with a bill (SB-214) currently under consideration in the Alabama Legislature. Marsh is not the only political figure to take heat in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are Age With Dignity Inc., OIC Dream Greene County, and Dream County Inc. Defendants include fictitious parties -- members of the legislature who allegedly have accepted funds from the Poarch Creeks to promote or agree to vote for SB 214. From the lawsuit, which is embedded at the end of this post:

The sponsors of SB-214, Defendant Marsh, President Pro Tem of the Senate, on two occasions, solicited a bribe and received monies from the Poarch Creeks to sponsor and pursue legislation like SB-214. According to the Alabama Political Reporter, “WHEN THE HEAD OF THE POARCH CREEK TRIBE WAS ASKED IF THE REQUEST CAME FROM DEL MARSH, HE SAID "YES", WHEN ASKED AGAIN, MCGHEE   SAID, "IT WASN’T AT OUR REQUEST. IT WAS AT HIS REQUEST." ACCORDING TO MCGHEE, MARSH MADE SUCH A REQUEST ON TWO OCCASIONS, ASKING FOR $100K ON ONE VISIT AND $250K ON THE NEXT. "WE GAVE THE MONEY IN THE SPIRIT OF BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR ALABAMA GOVERNMENT,’ SAID MCGHEE.

In a report at WSFA, Marsh and McGhee dispute the accusations:

“That’s a flat lie. I mean, I’ve never, ever insinuated to anyone that I will cast a vote for money. That’s a flat out lie,” Marsh said.

A representative for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians called the allegations in the lawsuit nonsense.

“It’s definitely not true. It’s unfortunate that people would want to attack the Poarch Band of Creek Indians and Senator Marsh with unfounded and nonsense accusations,” said Robert McGhee, director of governmental affairs and public relations.

The lawsuit also claims that Senate Bill 214, a gambling proposal Marsh is sponsoring, creates an illegal monopoly. The legislation as it stands would allow five locations to have casino-style games. Four of those locations are current operations. The legislation would also create a lottery.

“I’ve been hired by three charities in Greene County, who received their funds on legally operating gaming facilities under the law,” said attorney Thomas Gallion, who represents the plaintiffs. “They have to, you know, go through the charities, and they are being blocked by Senate Bill 214, which gives a monopoly to a selected few, in particularly the Poarch Creek Indians.”

Gallion said his clients want Senate Bill 214 “declared a restraint of trade” and that it essentially creates an illegal monopoly.

(Note: The Alabama Senate rejected the bill yestrday.)

In the complaint, Gallion spells out the expected harm to Greene County and describes GreeneTrack's operations as "fraudulent":

Almost 90 percent of Greene County’s total revenue comes from bingo revenue at legally
operated gaming facilities in Greene County that SB-214 would destroy. If this revenue is taken away from Greene County, Greene County could go into bankruptcy for the second time.

GreeneTrack, owes the State of Alabama $71,976,944.00 in taxes and has a recorded
certified tax lien by the State of Alabama Department of Revenue. This amount does not include interest and penalties over the last 3 years. . . .

SB-214 would give a monopoly in Greene County to GreeneTrack, who will not pay its taxes; will not pay its rent to Greene County; will not pay the other fees to Greene County; and will not disclose the stockholders in GreeneTrack to the citizens of Greene County. Winn and [Al] Sharpton were denied a license in the State of New York as stated above and according to IRS records, Sharpton owes millions in federal income taxes. As stated, Sharpton, Winn, and GreeneTrack spent over $10 million dollars of GreeneTrack’s shareholders’ money to file application for a Gaming License in the state of New York.

As for political figures, besides Marsh, who take fire in the lawsuit . . . well, they include some familiar names:

Jack Abramoff (“Abramoff”) and his D.C. lobby partner Michael Scanlon (“Scanlon”) concocted an illegal ploy to use Indian Casino money to take over the State of Alabama in 2001. Both were convicted in this matter and sent to prison. In order to accomplish their goals they used Alabama politicians. The main conspirator was then their ally, Republican Congressman Bob Riley (“Riley”).

Felons Abramoff and Scanlon worked with Riley in assisting him with Indian casino money to run for governor against the Democratic incumbent Don Siegelman. Abramoff’s
client was the Mississippi Choctaw Indians Casino (“Choctaw”) located near the Alabama-
Mississippi line (the majority of gamblers were from Alabama).

The following are illegal acts Abramoff and the Choctaws accomplished, admitted in writing by Abramoff in his book Capitol Punishment. Abramoff stated as follows:

(a) Don Siegelman was indeed targeted for prosecution by the Choctaws;

(b) Milton McGregor was politically prosecuted by Riley and his allies because he
refused to hire Riley’s son, attorney Rob Riley, which he considered a bribe designed to help the Choctaws;

(c) Abramoff stated, “It cost the tribe approximately $20 million to wage the battles,
but the returns were worth it to them” he said, “Chief Martin called it ‘the best slot machine they had’, and he was not kidding.”

 Bob Riley comes under particularly heavy fire in Gallion's complaint:

Riley and later the Poarch Creeks had taken millions from the Choctaws, and Scanlon
was not only his ally but was his former congressional aide.

Riley defeated Siegelman because he and other Republicans had used their political
power with the Republican U.S. Attorney Laura Canary and Republican Federal Judge Mark Fuller to try and wrongfully indict and convict Siegelman in the most corrupt political prosecution in the history of our country. This Honorable Court can take judicial notice of the corrupt trial in the Federal Court for the Middle District of Alabama. This resulted in putting an innocent Siegelman in prison to accomplish Riley’s goals to help the Choctaws defeat Siegelman’s Education Lottery proposal and to defeat Siegelman in his governor's race against Riley.

Riley also organized the indictment of Milton McGregor, on behalf of the Choctaws. Riley accepted millions in bribe money, directly or indirectly, when governor of Alabama, from the Choctaws. McGregor was found innocent because he had an excellent lawyer in Joe Espy and, unlike Siegelman, drew an honest federal judge, Myron Thompson, whom Riley (on behalf of the Choctaws) could not control.

Riley then turned his corrupt ploy and began helping the Alabama Poarch Creek
Indians (“Poarch Creek”) and has taken thousands, if not millions, of dollars in bribes to help create a gaming monopoly for the Poarch Creeks by using his position as governor of Alabama.

Luther Strange does not escape Gallion's attention:

Riley solicited his ally Republican Attorney General Luther Strange (“Strange”) to
complete his mission to shut down McGregor and at the same time destroy the historical majority black City of Tuskegee and Macon County.

Strange took $100,000 and used his position as attorney general to illegally raid
McGregor’s casino (and other gaming facilities), terrifying the majority black employees and patrons in a manner that has never happened in Alabama. After Strange took the above stated money from the Poarch Creeks, in return he did the following at Riley’s and the Poarch Creeks’ instructions:

(a) Strange ignored a very respected Alabama circuit judge’s order that he could not
perform this raid;

(b) Strange ignored the sheriff of Macon County, who by law, was in charge of the
enforcement of the law regarding McGregor’s casino, Victoryland, which was a legal operation -- and the law making it a legal operation was enacted by the Alabama Legislature; and

(c) Strange and his troops confiscated Victoryland’s machines and subsequently gave
them to the Poarch Creek Casino, to further earn the $100,000 payment he received.

Alabama has been bought by the Indian casinos’ money to pay off corrupt politicians to help the Indian casinos, who pay no taxes-- which, if paid, would help the public-school
children in Alabama. In 2017, Alabama was ranked 50th of 50 states as the worst educational system in the nation. The only Alabama citizens who have benefited in all of this are the corrupt politicians and the Indian casinos. Riley, Strange, and Defendant Marsh by their actions have harmed and will continue to harm the public school systems in Alabama.

 

Does Doug Jones' background include unpleasantness that could turn his confirmation process into a Clarence Thomas/Brett Kavanaugh slugfest?

 

Doug Jones

Part Two

U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) is seen by many as the most confirmable of Joe Biden's possible nominees for U.S. attorney general. But the D.C.-based publisher of the Justice Integrity Project (JIP) hints that a thorough investigation of Jones' past might unearth ugliness that could turn his confirmation process into a lugfest.

Journalist-lawyer-author Andrew Kreig  suggests Jones' background might include some unpleasantness that could make his confirmation more difficult than some might imagine:

If any senators from either party dared dig beyond the surface? A confirmation proceeding could well become more explosive than any other in modern times, making the Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh court confirmations seem tame by contrast, and might well tarnish top figures in the Obama-Biden administration for failures to clean up what are reliably reported as shocking levels of official corruption in Alabama in recent years. 

It took many years until nearly the present even for [Tommy] Gallion and [Don] Siegelman to publish 2020 books that penetrate the inherent secrecy of the Justice Department in such sensitive matters.

So, it is no surprise or embarrassment that one of the major Washington Post stories, as of this writing, Biden narrows attorney general list, portrayed Jones as perhaps the most readily confirmable of attorney general candidates because of perceptions that he is a moderate who gets along with most Republicans.

Read further for a deeper view.

Alabama has been riddled with corruption since at least the mid 1990s -- for much of Doug Jones' professional life. And yet, the junior U.S. senator has done precious little to improve the situation, Kreig reports. In essence, Kreig writes, Jones saw the Alabama swamp and dove right in, splashing around with the swamp rats. That hardly seems to make him the kind of rock-ribbed reformer that likely will be needed for justice-related positions in the post-Trump era. That, Kreig writes, would make Jones a particularly poor choice as Joe Biden's nominee to be U.S. attorney general. 

Here is more from a post dated 12/14/20 at the JIP -- under the headline "Sen. Doug Jones As ‘Confirmable’ Biden AG? Bad Idea!". Kreig notes that some Alabamans who have worked closely with Jones do not speak highly of him. That includes Montgomery lawyer Tommy Gallion. Writes Kreig:

Indeed, one of his former law partners, the prominent Alabama attorney Thomas T. Gallion III, published a book this year surveying nearly seven decades of official corruption in the state — and names Jones as part of a "Cabal" working with powerful Republicans in moneymaking schemes that flagrantly violate the law, legal ethics and other  core values of justice and democracy.

The book, Shadow Government, Southern Style: A Saga of Political Corruption From DC to Dixie, was first published in May by Gallion, a partner in the Montgomery firm Haskell Slaughter. Among other posts, he has been County Attorney for Montgomery County (encompassing the state capital) since 1985.

Gallion identifies as a Republican. But his book is a non-partisan slam at those whom he regards as corrupt, including Jeff Sessions, President Trump's first Attorney General after decades as Republican senator and prosecutor in Alabama. Other targets of Gallion include the recent two-term Republican Alabama Gov. Bob Riley (2003-2011), and longtime Bush Family political aide Karl Rove, a White House senior advisor to President George W. Bush.

Regarding Jones (who failed to respond to our invitation this week to comment for this column), Gallion drew on his extensive study of the senator's career to pose near the end of his book a page-long series of questions that he challenged Jones to answer under oath.

Mentioning such allegations does not mean they are true, of course. Nothing like Gallion's allegations have surfaced in national reporting about Jones's unsuccessful campaign for Senate re-election this fall or regarding the Biden-Harris Transition Team appointment process to pick an Attorney General.

That lack of national coverage for allegations against Jones continues as of this writing. That's so, at least for now, even though the Gallion book is receiving good reader reviews and it reports about legal skullduggery of a kind often suspected in Alabama. That's a state where one-party domination creates lucrative opportunities for those close to office-holders and thwarts checks-and-balances, as evidenced by the ouster of the state's governor and House speaker for unrelated scandals in recent years.

More generally, Stealing Our Democracy: How the Political Assassination of a Governor Threatens Our Nation, published in June by former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, covers much of the same ground as the Gallion book.

Siegelman, a Jones client and a Democrat who served from 1999 until the Republican Riley took office in 2003, was imprisoned on corruption charges in 2007 in what became a notorious case worldwide because of allegations supported by whistle blowers and legal scholars that he and others had been framed for political reasons.

Kreig writes that Jones' power base has been built on a form of "go-along-to-get along careerism":

At first impression, the moderate and sometimes pro-Trump Jones voting record in the Senate confers confirmable status, especially coupled with Jones's former work as a Judiciary Committee Senate staffer.

But some in the Democratic base are already complaining about Jones as too moderate. That could escalate with wider recognition that he tilts to “go-along-to-get-along” careerism. It hardly helps that he is a white man and that reform pressures are coming most heavily from minorities and civil rights groups, including the NAACP.

Most relevant here is that Jones's connections failed to save his client in one of his biggest legal cases, aside from his duly-praised successes in leading a 1990s civil rights federal prosecution of 1960s Alabama church bombing murderers.

This case, the Bush Administration prosecution of Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, became a worldwide human rights scandal. A seemingly separate civil lawsuit enriched Jones with legal fees, helping make it possible for him to secure the support enabling his ongoing leadership in the fractured, cash-strapped and largely ineffective Alabama Democratic Party.

Jones thus ascended in 2017 to the Senate seat, which he lost in November’s elections. He is now positioning himself as a front runner for the AG post.

 

 Does Jones merit front-runner status? No, says Kreig:

Vulnerabilities of Jones are well-documented and are likely to embarrass the Biden team if he is nominated.

That’s especially so because the Jones problems illustrate the concerns that Black and Hispanic criminal justice reformers are voicing already (albeit without the specifics below) about a need for a hard-hitting expert voice helming the Justice Department.

My conclusions endorsing those criticisms of Jones are based on more than a decade of in-depth investigation by the non-partisan Justice Integrity Project of mind-boggling abuses in Alabama where Jones built his career with only occasional demonstrations of extraordinary commitment to rectifying the state's massive official corruption. . . . 

What could all of this mean for Joe Biden's presidency? Writes Kreig:

Before providing a Jones rebuttal to these allegations of defense shortcomings, let’s sketch some of the implications for the incoming Biden-Harris administration.

For one thing, the Obama-Biden Justice Department remained oblivious at best to the allegations and evidence, and at worst aggressively assisted the cover-up for reasons hard to explain, except at best a “don’t rock the boat” mentality.

Thus, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder fired Justice Department paralegal Tamarah Grimes in 2009 when she stepped forward to document what Grimes regarded as outrageous conduct by Leura Canary in supervising Siegelman’s prosecution and specific abuses on a near-daily basis. The conduct included vast spending at the Air Force base, according to Grimes, even though Canary supposedly recused herself. Siegelman, Scrushy and their attorneys have never been able to obtain the paperwork on Canary’s supposed “recusal” despite innumerable requests dating back to their trials.

For another thing, the Obama Justice Department vigorously resisted the appeals of Siegelman and Scrushy, just as it did for other obvious victims of the Bush-Rove “U.S. Attorney Firing Scandal” of 2006, whereby up to nine of the nation’s presidentially appointed U.S. attorneys were fired for failing to bring dubious cases and many others were retained under pressure to indict Democrats regarded as having promising futures.

Siegelman, the only politician in Alabama history to win election to all four of the state’s top political offices, had once been regarded as a future presidential contender, in part because his popularity bridged Black and white constituencies.

Remarkably, the Obama-Biden administration kept Alabama’s Leura Canary in her presidential appointed Justice Department post for more than two years after Obama took office, and long after the scandals broke on the 2008 CBS 60 Minutes broadcast and otherwise.

Then the new Democratic administration replaced her as U.S. attorney (at the suggestion of Alabama’s two Republican senators) with George Beck, the former Nick Bailey attorney who was thus in a perfect position to maintain a cover-up of official misconduct through the end of the Obama-Biden administration.

Before Beck’s confirmation, our Justice Integrity Project published a four-part series documenting why the U.S. Senate should examine Beck’s track record and deny his confirmation. Beck, at age 62 was taking a job normally awarded to a younger attorney, thereby raising questions why he wanted it.

That series had no discernible impact on a self-absorbed Senate and Obama-Biden administration. But it did serve to provide the Bailey-supporting critic Luther "Stan" Pate with a forum to describe Beck as the worst, most despicable attorney he had ever observed because of his failure to protect his client. Beck, like judge Mark Fuller, declined comment. Fuller would go on to be forced to resign from the federal bench after his arrest for beating his second wife, who had been his court clerk during the Siegelman-Scrushy trial -- yet another curiosity in a trial marred by a host of other irregularities.

The series also enabled Jones to defend his conduct at length, via an email reprinted here:

George is eminently qualified to be US Attorney. He is a veteran lawyer who is respected by judges and lawyers on both sides of the aisle. He will be fair and balanced, and not driven by any political agenda, which is especially important for that particular U.S. Attorney position.

This is not a lifetime appointment. So, I am not concerned at all about his age. I think that office needs a seasoned lawyer with a steady hand regardless of age, and he certainly fits that bill.

With regard to his representation about Nick [Bailey], it is not a question whether he might be conflicted. He will be conflicted from any involvement in the case. I think that the real question will be whether it causes the entire office, including the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who prosecuted the case, to also be recused. A strong argument can be made that this case is so controversial that the entire office should be recused, and either another U.S. attorney appointed to oversee the case or someone out of Main Justice. That's a decision to be made by the hierarchy at DOJ.

Finally, all I can say about any questions that have after the fact been raised regarding my representation of Gov. Siegelman while also working on a civil matter against Richard Scrushy is that Don was well aware of the civil case and it was never an issue with us and that is all that matters to me. Moreover, as you know I did not represent him at trial due to a trial conflict with another matter and it is the trial where the rubber meets the road with regard to such issues. Scrushy was ultimately dismissed from our case without any settlement or judgment against him.

Any reporter, as I was throughout the early part of my career before I became a lawyer and federal judge’s clerk, appreciates the willingness of a news subject to provide comment in response to questions on highly sensitive matters that Jones, among others, was in a position to ferret out and, if he so desired, protest.

In fairness, the Jones remarks above show that he is confident and facile in his explanations, qualities that have served him very well, as indicated by such stories as the Washington Post report on Dec. 12 suggesting that he had emerged as the leading candidate for the post even compared to former Obama-Biden Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, whose management and relevant leadership is far more recent than the regional office work of Jones during the 1990s.

Thus far, Jones has been able to leverage his team’s 1990s prosecution of Alabama church-bombing racists who murdered four schoolgirls in 1964. That has provided Jones with an image of civil rights advocacy cited in most news profiles of him that counters the complaints of Black civil rights leaders who are pressuring Biden for a Black attorney general.

But true civil rights advocacy should not focus simply on identity politics and high-profile jobs for Blacks and other minorities. Instead, the Justice Department, courts and prisons need an expert, passionate and non-partisan recommitment to human rights and justice.

The abuses of the Siegelman-Scrushy case were readily apparent to Republicans like Grant Wood and Stan Pate, as well as a host of other observers. In contrast, after Eric Holder’s retirement from leading the Justice Department I asked him about the Siegelman case following a speech he delivered at the Center for American Progress. He told me as we walked together after the lecture toward his law office he was not familiar with the Siegelman case.

Bottom line: Doug Jones, well-connected as he might be to his current Senate colleagues, has lived a privileged career, buttressed with some major successes but also not buttressed with the extraordinary qualities needed for these times. There are many posts that a former senator and prosecutor can pursue with dignity but supervising the Justice Department at this time is not one of them.

And if Joe Biden and his new administration fail to see why his former staffer Jones fails this test in such a notorious case as Siegelman’s, which is by no means unique considering the untold tales elsewhere in the legal system, that failure is all the more personal to the incoming president and his party because they would have knowingly picked image over substance.

The stakes are high. And, post-Trump, the public is watching.