Legal Schnauzer passes 4 million page views and reaches its 13th anniversary, two major milestones in our effort to unmask legal and political corruption

 

 Legal Schnauzer recently reached two milestones, and I never dreamed we would approach either one. First, we passed 4 million page views. Then, we reached the blog's 13th anniversary.

Both are pretty neat when you consider that I started this little enterprise with the idea that it probably would last a year or so.

Along the way, we have . . .

* Been named among the top 50 law blogs in North America, the only truly independent blog on the list. All the others are connected to law firms, law schools, legal associations, media groups, or public-affairs organizations.

* Played a lead role in the ousting of corrupt political figures, such as Alabama "Luv Guv" Robert Bentley and his mistress "Home Wrecky Becky" Caldwell Mason, plus former U.S. Judge Mark Fuller. We played a supporting role in the investigative journalism that led to the conviction of former House Speaker Mike Hubbard. Most recently, we played a supporting role in the journalism that apparently led to the retirement of Jefferson County Probate Judge Alan King and the surprise resignation of U.S. Attorney Jay Town -- with Ban Balch playing a lead role on both stories.


* Perhaps more than any other news site in Alabama, we've exposed the hypocrisy of "family values" conservatives, reporting on the extramarital activities and financial shenanigans involving U.S. Sen. Luther Strange and Jessica Medeiros Garrison; former GOP Gov. Robert Bentley, and the fully nude, gay-porn photographs of U.S. Judge Bill Pryor,

* On a story that has international implications, we've reported on former Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his history of corrupt actions dating back more than 20 years in Alabama.Substantial evidence suggests Sessions was in the middle of the KremlinGate scandal, which should surprise no one who knows about Sessions' background in "The Heart of Dixie, including his ties to the scandal-plagued Balch Bingham law firm.

When we gave birth to Legal Schnauzer back in the George W. Bush era, we did not have many other muckraking  enterprises in the Alabama blogosphere. I'm pleased to report that we have some excellent company these days. Of particular note is banbalch.com, which came on the scene roughly four years ago and has become a highly influential blog in a relatively short time. Publisher K.B Forbes. is an aggressive investigator, with a colorful writing style, and we suspect that has made Ban Balch must reading for many in the Birmingham legal community.

As for our milestones, they start with our first post, which was titled "Is 'Your Honor' Really Honorable?" and published on June 3, 2007. Some 4,164 posts later, we are still cranking out the kind of investigative journalism that is found at very few news outlets in Alabama, or anywhere else.

We're not certain when we passed 4 million page views, but the current number from the primary statistics service that we use (as I write this) is at 4,339,434. Our all-time unique visits are at roughly 3  million.

For reasons I don't fully understand, our second stat service (which is Google based) provides significantly different numbers. It has our all-time page views at 8.4 million, which means we passed 4 million there a long time ago. I didn't sign up for the first stat service until I had been blogging for several months, while the second one is attached to the blogging platform itself, and that might explain part of the difference. But on a daily basis, the Google-based counter provides a number that is roughly twice that of  the independent counter.

Never have figured out why that happens. I like the Google numbers better, but I tend to look at the independent numbers as the official count for Legal Schnauzer.

The numbers show that our readership has steadily grown. After starting the blog on June 3, 2007, we reached 1 million page views on or about July 15, 2011. We reached 2 million page views on or about February 25, 2015. We' published a post about hitting 3 million page views on July 5, 2017.  This post, about passing 4 million comes on Nov. 11, 2020.

That means it took a little more than 4 years to reach 1 million, another 3 1/2 years to reach 2 million, another 2 1/2 years to reach 3 million, and another 3 years to reach 4 million. That indicates there is a serious appetite for the kind of journalism we produce at Legal Schnauzer -- and I would say that's a good thing, especially given that we have been in an era of public corruption unlike anything this country ever has seen. And much of it likely has ties to Alabama.

Legal Schnauzer clearly has made an impact, largely because of readers who follow and support us, and sources who help inform us. Regular readers know that our kind of unbridled journalism comes with a price, especially in red states like Alabama and Missouri, where corruption flows like a river.

In October 2013, I was kidnapped by "law enforcement" from inside our home in Birmingham and tossed in jail for five months. In essence, I was "arrested for blogging," reporting on the gross corruption that only recently has caught the attention of the state's somnolent mainstream press. In summer 2014, forced from our home by a wrongful foreclosure, Carol and I landed in Springfield, Missouri, where I grew up. In September 2015, we were the targets of an unlawful eviction, which included cops pointing assault rifles at my head and shattering Carol's left arm so severely that it required trauma surgery.

It seems clear that both of these events were attempts to shut down Legal Schnauzer. But we are still here, and our readership is growing. The thugs have failed, in the face of devoted, intelligent, and thoughtful readers.

For your gracious support, we offer our most sincere thanks. And we invite you to stick around for the next 4 million page views.

On a final note, we reached one other milestone recently. On May 31, 2020, we had 65,199 page views -- a one-day record for the blog. The next day, June1, 2020, we had 59,163 page views -- for a two-day total of  124,362, another record.

With six of his convictions on ethics violations upheld, ex-Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard appears headed down a road that leads to a prison-cell door

Mike Hubbard

Alabamians could be forgiven if they think, "Mike Hubbard is never going to prison. He runs with the corporate elites, and they will make sure he does not pay for his crimes the way the rest of us would." After all, a Lee County jury convicted Hubbard four years ago on multiple counts of violating the state ethics law, and he has been out on appeals bond ever since. But Hubbard's road to legal perdition might have begun in earnest 10 days ago when the Alabama Supreme upheld six convictions against him -- while reversing five -- and the chances of Hubbard avoiding prison now appear to be virtually zero, according to a report at Alabama Political Reporter (APR).

Reporting under the headline, "Will Mike Hubbard ever go to jail? Yes. And likely soon," APR's Josh Moon writes:

Mike Hubbard is likely going to prison within the next couple of months.

Hubbard, the former Alabama House speaker, had his conviction on 11 felony ethics counts partially upheld last week by the Alabama Supreme Court. The justices overturned five of the charges and sent them back to the Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals for review, but upheld six of his charges.

And those six matter a lot.

Under the original sentence imposed by Lee County Circuit Court Judge Jacob Walker, Hubbard was set to serve four years in prison and eight years of probation. That sentence was structured in a manner that all but assured Hubbard would serve that time unless the entire verdict against him was overturned.

It wasn’t. And a source familiar with the ALSC’s opinion in the case told APR that the justices were fully aware that their opinion would not lessen Hubbard’s jail time.

Another factor now working against hubbard: The ALSC's ruling punts Hubbard's appeals bond out of the picture:

That ALSC opinion puts an end to Hubbard’s appeals bond that has allowed him to remain a free man as his case worked its way through the appeals process over the past four years.

According to the Lee County Circuit Court clerk’s office, once a final determination is made by the ALSC on charges that result in a sentence, that opinion is the final piece supporting the need for an appeals bond.

Basically, there are no additional avenues for appeal that could possibly result in Hubbard not serving his prison sentence, so the bond has to be revoked and Hubbard sent to prison.

Here is where the process gets down to the nitty gritty. Writes Moon:

Once Walker receives the certificate of judgment from the ALSC showing it upheld the counts that related to Hubbard’s sentence, that should prompt Walker to revoke the bond,  and Hubbard will be notified that he is expected to begin his prison term.

According to Scott Mitchell, the clerk of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, that certificate of judgment can’t be issued by the ALSC until at least 14 days have passed. That span allows both the prosecution and defense time to submit requests for rehearings on ALSC’s opinion. Should either side do so, consideration of those requests by ALSC could add more time.

“It’s really hard to say (how long it might take) — it’s such a case-by-case thing,” Mitchell said. “It could be anywhere from weeks to a couple of months before we get it.”

It is also not uncommon for one side or the other to ask for an extension of time to file their requests for a rehearing, which would add additional time.

However, once that certificate is sent out by the ALSC, it should trigger Walker to revoke the appeals bond.

The Criminal Appeals Court will also have to review Hubbard’s case and issue a new decision that considers the ALSC’s opinion on the six reversed counts. That process is likely to take much longer.

“Again, a lot of factors play into that and it’s hard to determine how long any one case might take,” Mitchell said. “I’d say you’re looking at a few months at least.”

It will only add to the extraordinary length of this case.

Hubbard was convicted in June 2016 on 12 felony counts for using his office for personal gain and directing public business to his clients. Court testimony and evidence revealed Hubbard was making more than $600,000 per year in “consulting” contracts, mostly for work in areas in which he held no prior work experience.

Since his conviction, a team of attorneys working for him — and financed by his campaign funds and various other entities — have challenged every word of his conviction, accusing the prosecution of misdeeds and attacking the state’s ethics laws — which Hubbard helped write — as overly broad and vague.

Those appeals have been successful in getting half of the charges knocked down. But because Hubbard’s prison sentence was tied to only a couple of the specific charges, those decisions will not lessen his jail time.

Mike Hubbard's grand fall, which the Alabama Supreme Court has sealed, should teach about the dangers that lie at the crossroads of greed and power

Mike Hubbard

 
The Alabama Supreme Court's affirmance of six convictions against former House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) should serve as a cautionary tale about the dangers that reside at the intersection of greed and politics, state opinion writers say. It also should show the limitations of one-party voting, said one writer, but he sees no sign that Alabamians will absorb that lesson any time soon.


Bill Britt, of Alabama Political Reporter (APR), said justice was slow, but ultimately served, in the Hubbard case:

On Friday, April 10, 2020, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld Mike Hubbard’s conviction on six counts of felony ethics violations.

It was not a complete victory, but justice was served.

And even though the Court looked craven and reluctant in its ruling, it did, in fact, acknowledge Hubbard’s guilt and also maintained his sentence. He will receive a certification of guilt in the near future and will spend four years in jail for his crimes against the people of Alabama.

Hubbard did the one thing unacceptable in a democratic society; he betrayed the public trust by using his elected office for personal gain.

The idea of public trust holds that the true power in government lies with the people and that government officers are elected as their representatives, therefore when individuals use their office for personal benefit and not the public’s, they have broken the bond that gives them power.

Hubbard sought personal reward as a representative of the people, an inexcusable offense in a democratic republic.

Members of Hubbard's own party seem slow to grasp the gravity of his crimes, Britt writes:

For years and even today, there are Republicans in the state who believe that Hubbard should not have been prosecuted. Even Supreme Court Associate Justice Will Sellers wanted to let Hubbard walk free. Sellers, like many of his compatriots, seemed to believe that the office of the attorney general should have been pursuing Democrats, not fellow Republicans. This brand of partisan thinking holds true today in certain circles.

Hubbard was a talented politician, but power exposed his weakness.

Abraham Lincoln said, “If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

Hubbard failed that character test miserably, Britt writes:

Hubbard wanted a life grander than that of a humble public servant. His mentor, former-Gov. Bob Riley, warned him by asking in an August 2011 email, “Question now is DO YOU “WANT” to be Gov— or— make a lot of money: good thing is you could do either but I am not sure it’s possible to do both.

In an email earlier that Hubbard lamented his position as the most powerful man in state politics writing, “To be honest, I feel like I am failing my family by sacrificing the opportunity to make money in favor of a job that costs me money and a lot of grief.”

Hubbard’s was an ancient problem, “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,” that is what laid him low. He looked at the men around him who enjoyed wealth and privilege and lusted for the same lifestyle. Hubbard was a dismal failure in business and only succeeded on occasions through rigged bids and the help of more influential older men.

In every one of his crimes underlies a desire for more money, and as Speaker of the House, the lure of easy money was his undoing.

I spend nearly eight years tracking Hubbard’s crimes and wrongdoings. I hope this is the last time I ever write about him, but that is not a given.

A prime lesson from the Hubbard affair? Public officials should be aware of the company they keep, writes al.com's Kyle Whitmire:

Take this as a warning, Alabama lawmakers.

You, too, elected officials.

From the governor’s mansion to the town council, be warned.

If you break Alabama’s ethics laws, you may go to prison. It doesn’t matter how much power you have.

Nearly four years after a Lee County jury convicted Mike Hubbard of breaking ethics laws he helped pass, the former Alabama House speaker lost his last appeal — mostly.

In a messy opinion, with two justices recusing, and others concurring or dissenting for their own reasons, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld enough of the counts against Hubbard that he will have to spend some time in prison. The opinion kicks the case back to the Court of Criminal Appeals to figure out just how long he’ll be there.

That’s significant. Five years ago, Hubbard was the most powerful politician in Alabama. Soon he will be an inmate in one of the prisons the Legislature has spent decades neglecting.

Hubbard used his office to advance his personal business interests. That’s a fact now. There’s no “allegedly” attached to it. There’s no footnote saying if this survives appeals. He did it. He’s a crook. He’s guilty. And now he’s going to jail.

Will Alabama officials be slow to grasp that lesson? Probably, just as Alabama citizens fail to understand that voting reflexively for one party, no matter how corrupt it has proven to be, is not such a swift idea. Writes APR's Josh Moon in a piece titled "Mike Hubbard has taught us nothing":

Mike Hubbard is going to prison.

There is no glee in those words. There’s nothing happy or satisfying about them. A man did wrong and now a family will be without a father and a wife without a husband, and we’ll have one more body wedged into an Alabama prison for a few years.

Because Mike Hubbard, former speaker of the Alabama House and arguably the most powerful man in Alabama politics a few years ago, is without a doubt going to prison. According to sources familiar with the sentencing process, Hubbard’s original four-year sentence (and 16 years of probation) still stands, despite the Alabama Supreme Court graciously knocking down six of the 11 charges he faced.

Exactly when Hubbard will report to prison is a good question. The ALSC sent those six charges back down to a lower court to be considered again, so there’s a chance — maybe even likely — that Hubbard will again remain free on bond as he awaits that court’s decision.

But eventually, he’ll go. As he should.

Because Mike Hubbard broke the law.

In a perfect world, Hubbard’s crimes would be a wake-up call to Alabamians and Alabama politicians. The total exposure by Hubbard’s trial of greed and good-ol-boy politickin’ that goes on in Montgomery on a daily basis should have been enough to force voters to pay attention and force lawmakers to walk a finer line.

But that hasn’t been the case.

Instead, Alabama voters have done what they always do — go back to talking about football and voting for whoever registers for the popular party — and Alabama lawmakers have gone back to doing what they always do — stealing our money for themselves and their friends.

I don’t understand it. And I never will.

Hubbard’s case wasn’t a one-off, and you know it. Look at the people involved and the conversations they had — conversations through emails that were documented in court. They talked openly about schemes to get themselves and their friends more taxpayer money. They casually discussed ways that Hubbard, and other lawmakers, could use his office to generate more “consulting” contracts for himself.

In email after email, Hubbard whined about going broke and how the ethics laws, which he helped write, were preventing him from earning a living. He was making about a half-million bucks per year at the time.

A former governor, numerous lawmakers and some of the state’s top business leaders were all in on these conversations.

And let me tell you from experience — from walking those State House halls, talking to lawmakers and lobbyists and staffers and mistresses and wives and some of the biggest players in all of state politics: What Hubbard was doing happens EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

The Alabama Supreme Court tried to treat Mike Hubbard with kid gloves, but it ultimately upheld six convictions, meaning the ex-speaker's road to prison started with grotesque financial incompetence

Mike Hubbard (The New Republic)

After siting on the case for roughly two years, the Alabama Supreme Court on Friday announced it had upheld six convictions against former House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn), while reversing on five counts. That chops the total convictions from 12 that a Lee County Jury imposed almost four years ago, and it comes two years (August 2018) after the Alabama Court of Court of Criminal Appeals upheld all but one of the original 12 convictions. In all, the Supreme Court's findings come almost six years after Hubbard was indicted for alleged violations of the state ethics law.

The extended legal drama leaves a number of compelling questions:

(1) Q. Hubbard has yet to spend a moment behind bars, but with six felony convictions now firmly imposed against him, will he finally don an orange jumpsuit?

A: it's hard to see how he will escape prison time now. Hubbard's original sentence was four years, and given the five overturned counts, that could be reduced -- and we certainly can expect more stalling tactics from his attorneys. But time as a jailbird certainly appears to be in Hubbard's future. In fact, al.com reports the following:

Jenny Carroll, a professor at the University of Alabama Law School, said today the Court of Criminal Appeals has the option of reconsidering the five charges that were reversed by the Supreme Court or sending the case back to the trial court.

Carroll said the trial judge could re-sentence Hubbard now that six of the 12 charges he was initially found guilty of have been reversed.

The Court of Criminal Appeals or the trial court could revoke Hubbard’s appeal bond, which would require him to report to jail by a specific date, according to Carroll.

The former speaker has the option of filing a federal court appeal because he has raised constitutional issues, Carroll said.

(2) Q. Why did the Supreme Court wait so long on issuing the Hubbard opinion?

A:  From here, it looks like the court was stalling to come up with some way to let Hubbard skate. Ultimately, it appears, the case against Hubbard was so strong that they could find no way to let him off completely.

Josh Moon, of Alabama Political Reporter's (APR), writing last November about criminal charges against Limestone County Sheriff Mike Blakely (along with insights from Blakely's attorney, Robert Tuten), blasted the high court's handling of the Hubbard matter:

Cases like Blakely’s remind everyone that what’s happened in Hubbard’s appeal — the obviously political delays and phony hand-wringing — is shameful.

It has left judges and prosecutors and attorneys all over the state questioning what’s legal and what’s not. And as Tuten noted, it truly has put a number of verdicts in jeopardy.

All to protect a stone cold crook.

Look, we can debate a bunch of things in this state, but the fact that Mike Hubbard was 100 percent guilty of using his office for personal gain just isn’t one of them. The guy took a lucrative “consulting” contract with a pharmaceutical company, then instructed the House budget chairman to insert language into the budget that gave that company an exclusive deal, and then he voted to approve that budget.

If you look up “using your office for personal gain,” that’s the definition.

In other words, there was no legitimate reason for the delay, so the Supremes spparently were trying to grant Hubbard  a gigantic favor -- in the form of a "Get Out of Jail Free Card."

(3) Q: If the Supremes wanted to let Hubbard off the hook, why didn't they do it?

A:  I can only speculate on this for the moment, but this much we know: Alabama is a GOP-dominated state, but that dominance has hit shaky ground in recent years. In addition to Hubbard's ignominious exit from public office, former Gov. Robert Bentley and former Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore were forced out amid allegations of corruption. Right-wing Birmingham law firm Balch Bingham and its corporate benefactor, Alabama Power, are under intense scrutiny from the North Birmingham Superfund scandal and other apparent misdeeds. Former Business Council of Alabama (BCA) chief Bill Canary, a longtime chum of GOP power brokers Karl Rove and Tom Donohue, was shown the door. Has the environment in Alabama, at least behind the scenes, changed to the extent that the Supremes felt it was too risky to let Hubbard off the hook altogether?

Here is a take on this question from APR's Bill Britt, writing last July:

From the beginning, Hubbard’s case was fraught with political intrigue as wealthy donors, political operatives, radio talk-show hosts, media-types and lawmakers worked to upend indictments brought by the Attorney General’s Special Prosecution Division.

Even now, many of those same forces seek to overturn Hubbard’s conviction.

In the last election cycle, some of Hubbard’s most ardent supporters gave heavily to the campaigns of the justices who are now charged with ruling on his appeal.

Legitimate media, however, over the course of Hubbard’s trial turned from tacit skeptics to hardened critics of Hubbard’s dubious deeds while leading the Republican House supermajority. Most lawmakers who paid blind obedience to Hubbard while speaker have now abandoned him and pray privately for a speedy end to the matter.

(4) Q. How did Hubbard get into such trouble in the first place? Isn't he smart enough not to run afoul of the very ethics laws he had championed?

A: This might be the most fascinating question of all. Published reports indicate the Hubbard case, at its heart, is a story of white entitlement, of a so-called businessman who couldn't even keep his family finances in order. He felt entitled to all kinds of extravagances that he couldn't afford. When Hubbard's personal balance sheet started looking grim, he turned to wealthy GOP supporters, in desperation, for help -- and that led to his ethics problems. In short, Hubbard touts his "pro business" credentials, but he's a bad businessman -- one who probably should not be entrusted with his own checkbook, much less the people's business.  Consider this from The New Republic's Joe Miller, in a 2016 article titled "Beyond Mike Hubbard: How Deep Does Corruption in Alabama Go?'" Miller focuses heavily on the relationship between Hubbard and Bill Canary:

And throughout the five years Hubbard held this power, Canary enjoyed a standing weekly meeting with him in the speaker’s office during legislative sessions, where they shaped the agenda for the entire state.

But they also talked about personal matters—especially the speaker’s financial woes. When he formally assumed the speakership in January 2011, Hubbard lost his private-sector job and was left with a handful of struggling businesses in Auburn, one of which was in arrears on its payroll taxes and on the brink of bankruptcy. He was drawing $60,000 a year from the state for his part-time legislator job—though that is almost 50 percent more than the average household earns annually in Alabama—and his wife Susan brought in about $150,000 from Auburn University, where she is a dean. In bank documents, the Hubbards reported a net worth of $8.8 million, with large holdings of stocks, several commercial properties, a large home in Auburn, a lake house, a vacation farm, and a beach condo in the Florida Panhandle, known by locals as the Redneck Riviera. But it wasn’t enough.

Mike and Susan Hubbard were worth $8.8 million, but they could not balance the books while living in east Alabama, where real-estate prices hardly are like those in Manhattan? Is it possible they could not afford a lake house, a vacation farm, and a beach condo -- to go with their large primary residence in Auburn -- but as white power brokers running in high-flying circles, they felt entitled to have such possessions?

Bottom line: Mike Hubbard now officially is a felon, and that will not go away: his case certainly is about criminality, but it started with financial stupidity and incompetence on a massive scale.

With more than 900 emails to analyze, story of white supremacy involving Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions is likely to get worse in future reports from SPLC

Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller

How riddled with corruption is Alabama's Republican Party? Consider this mind-blowing set of facts: At roughly the same time the state's House speaker (Mike Hubbard), governor (Robert Bentley), and Supreme Court chief justice (Roy Moore) were forced from office due to allegations of misconduct, one of the state's U.S. senators (Jeff Sessions) had a staffer (Stephen Miller) who, using taxpayer-funded resources, was promoting white supremacist literature and talking points to the right-wing Web site Breitbart News.

That is five Republicans -- who engaged in or allowed -- alleged activities that were criminal, dishonest, unlawful, despicable, or some combination of all those. We can put all of these acts under the broad category of "corruption," and they were committed by individuals who were elected or appointed to represent the State of Alabama.

With Hubbard, Moore, and Bentley having already hit the exits, we are left with this question: Should Miller be fired or forced to resign from his current position as a policy adviser to President Donald Trump -- and should Sessions be pressured to back out of the 2020 GOP race for his old U.S. Senate seat, currently held by Democrat Doug Jones?

The worst might be yet to come for Miller and Sessions. Wednesday's report about Miller's emails being leaked to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is just the first of an expected series of revelations based on roughly 900 emails. Upcoming installments might include much more damaging revelations than we've seen already, and they could answer this question: Did Miller act on his own or did he trade in white nationalist talking points with Sessions' knowledge and support? This is from an article at the Philadelphia Inquirer:

The report is the first installment in a series that draws on more than 900 leaked emails that Miller sent to a Breitbart writer over a 15-month period between 2015 and 2016. The report describes Miller's emails as overwhelmingly focused on race and immigration and characterizes him as obsessed with ideas like "white genocide" (a conspiracy theory associated with white supremacists) and sharply curbing immigration by nonwhites. 

Among the more damming email exchanges highlighted in the SPLC report is one that shows Miller directing a Breitbart reporter (Katie McHugh) to aggregate stories from the white supremacist journal American Renaissance, or "AmRen," for stories that emphasize crimes committed by immigrants and nonwhites. In another, Miller is apparently upset that Amazon removed Confederate flag merchandise from its marketplace in the wake of the 2015 Charleston church massacre. (Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos also owns The Washington Post.) Others reportedly show him promoting The Camp of Saints, a racist French novel popular among white nationalists.

Are even more damning revelations likely coming in future installments from the SPLC? Our guess is yes; we doubt the organization fired its strongest shots in the first article. While the public now probably associates Miller with Donald Trump, most of these actions happened on Jeff Sessions' watch, as driven home in this report from New York magazine:

Nobody would mistake Stephen Miller for a humanitarian. The White House speechwriter is widely known to be the force shaping President Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric and policies. Remember Trump’s Oval Office address in January, with its hyperbolic references to rapes, murders, and even dismemberment? That was all Miller, as McKay Coppins reported for The Atlantic at the time. Or the speech the president gave in Poland back in 2017? “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive,” Trump told a crowd in Warsaw. “Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?” If that sounds too eloquent for Trump, you’re right. The words belonged to Miller. So, too, did many of Trump’s most outrageous immigration policies, like family separation, and his ongoing quest to end temporary protected status for thousands of refugees.

None of this suggests that Trump is fully Miller’s puppet. Trump was a racist long before he became president and he campaigned on nationalist sentiments that Miller appears to share. But it is true that Miller has used the Trump White House to amplify his own, more developed notions about immigrants and race. A new report from the Southern Poverty Law Center clarifies the source of Miller’s views. He isn’t just an immigration skeptic. He’s immersed in the white-nationalist movement, and has been at least since he worked for Jeff Sessions. . . .

Miller’s white-nationalist sympathies aren’t limited to immigration. After Dylann Roof murdered black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, Miller was troubled by the prospect that Confederate monuments might disappear. In one message to McHugh, he wrote, “What do the [Confederate monument] vandals say to the people fighting and dying overseas in uniform right now who are carrying on a seventh or eighth generation of military service in their families, stretching back to our founding?” (The military might have its own white-nationalist problem, but as a matter of fact, it is not an all-white institution.) In a subsequent email, Miller wondered if the Spanish should thus be asked to stop displaying the country’s flag since it is, after all, a symbol of colonialism.

On their own, the emails are incontrovertible proof that Miller is not only racist, but is conversant in and influenced by white-nationalist thought.

Does the same hold true for Miller's boss at the time, former U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)? Future reporting from SPLC likely will make that clear.

Montgomery lawyer and right-wing talk-radio host Baron Coleman brags about costing others their jobs, but when his own livelihood is on the line, that opens the spigots of name-calling, threats, and profanity

Baron Coleman

What evidence suggests Montgomery lawyer and talk-radio host Baron Coleman -- aside from being a profane bully on the air -- is simply a rotten human being? For starters, Coleman left one radio station and landed at another roughly one month after calling Becky Gerritson (executive director of the Eagle Forum of Alabama) a "whore" and  a "bitch" and hinted at burning her house to the ground.

But the alarming side of Coleman's media shtick goes much deeper than that. Let's review the tirade Coleman launched on-air after Gerritson had the temerity to disagree with him about medical marijuana:

I've got renewed vigor and purpose. . . .

I've hired lawyers, and I'm pursuing a strategy of slash and burn, seek and destroy. If you come after me, you'd better be ready to go to the mat. . . . 

I never let someone come after me and don't take them out. Never. I will lose everything in search of making sure your life is hell. . . . I've got a new enemy, and her lawyer sucks, too. I'm going to destroy this bitch. I'm going to absolutely destroy her. Her life will never be the same. . . She has a bad lawyer who gave her terrible advice.

Coleman, it turns out, was just warming up. Here is more:

Mike Hubbard is going to prison; we did battle for years. Matt Hart and I did battle, he lost his job. An AM radio host and I did battle, and he lost his job. I don't lose, and I will blanking destroy you and everything you hold dear. Don't come after me unless you are fully ready to engage. Do not send me half-ass letters; that will not end well.

If you threaten me, I will burn your damned house to the ground. Not in the physical sense, but I will have you running back to Texas, I promise.

After vowing to destroy Becky Gerritson, Coleman brags about costing other people their jobs. (Note: The AM radio host in question is Montgomery attorney Mark Montiel, sources tell Legal Schnauzer.)What's up with Coleman? Is he well, is he dangerous, is his language that of a glorified domestic terrorist -- in an age where we seem to average one two mass shootings per month?

Let's consider Coleman's response when al.com asked about the ugly rant he directed at Gerritson -- and that she had responded by filing a complaint with the Alabama State Bar and contacted advertisers to ask if they really, really wanted to be associated with Coleman. Writes Mike Cason, of al.com:

Asked about those comments tonight, Coleman said he stood by them. He said Gerritson’s actions posed a threat to his livelihood and ability to take care of his wife and seven children.

Let's examine that statement in light of Coleman's on-air comments cited above. First, he brags about costing other people their jobs. But notice what happens when someone else takes actions that might put Coleman's livelihood -- and his ability to care for his wife and seven children -- on the line. When the tables are turned, so to speak, Coleman doesn't like it one bit. He resorts to name-calling, profanity, and threats -- in language dripping with hints of violence.

When your livelihood and your loved ones are threatened, Baron Coleman boasts about that -- almost seems to find it amusing. When his livelihood is threatened, things aren't so funny anymore. Now, it's a serious matter, one prompting threats that could be criminal under the Code of Alabama 13A-10-15. Within roughly the past week, two University of South Alabama students have been charged with making terrorist threats for using language that doesn't appear to be any more coarse than what Coleman used.

As for Coleman, his lack of empathy for the rights and feelings of others comes real close to the classic definition of sociopathy. That radio stations in Montgomery keep giving him a soapbox seems off-the-charts irresponsible.

Would a black media personality get away with this kind of behavior -- exiting one station, after making wildly inappropriate (maybe criminal) on-air comments, only to land in the arms of another station? Not in a million years.

Montgomery lawyer and radio host Baron Coleman calls Eagle Forum exec a "whore" and a "bitch" and threatens violence -- with language about guns, ammunition, and burning houses to the ground

An Alabama lawyer and conservative talk-radio host might have put his bar card and sponsors at risk recently by launching into a profane, threat-filled rant against the executive director of the Eagle Forum of Alabama. Yes, we are talking about an internecine feud among right wingers -- and it all started because of a disagreement about medical marijuana, of all things.

The episode has unmasked Baron Coleman as a bully, who makes Rush Limbaugh sound like Dale Carnegie and has a tendency to make alarming references to violence -- especially with tough-guy talk involving guns, ammunition, and threats to "burn your damned house to the ground." In fact, Coleman seems to have an obsession with fire and likes to boast about costing perceived enemies their jobs.

Based on our experience with Coleman -- see here, here, and here -- none of this is a surprise. Jill Simpson -- whistle blower, opposition researcher, and activist -- has stated publicly several times that evidence points to Coleman and his client-felon Ali (Akbar) Alexander being involved with my "arrest for blogging" in 2013 and multiple fires that were set at her property in northeast Alabama.

Baron Coleman

Coleman is the host of News and Views at Montgomery's WACV (93.1 FM, 9 a.m. to noon, weekdays), and it's hard to see how station owner Bluewater Broadcasting allows him to spew the kind of vitriol he directed at Becky Gerritson -- Eagle Forum executive, 2016 Congressional candidate, and co-founder of the Wetumpka Tea Party.

How did Gerritson cross swords with Coleman? It started with Coleman voicing his support for a medical-marijuana bill in Alabama. Gerritson had the temerity to appear before the state legislature in May and voiced opposition to the bill. Coleman, with his usual class, responded by calling Gerritson a "big pharma whore" and a "bitch."

For some reason, Gerritson took exception to that and filed a complaint against Coleman with the Alabama State Bar. She also sent a letter to sponsors of his radio show and encouraged them to consider whether they wanted to be affiliated with a guy who comes across as slightly deranged on the radio.

Clips from News and Views (see audio at the top and bottom of this post) suggest Coleman might be coming unhinged -- and they certainly suggest he might be dangerous. From the first clip, which aired on July 9, 2019:

I've got renewed vigor and purpose. . . . 

I've hired lawyers, and I'm pursuing a strategy of slash and burn, seek and destroy. If you come after me, you'd better be ready to go to the mat. . . . 

I never let someone come after me and don't take them out. Never. I will lose everything in search of making sure your life is hell. . . . 

I've got a new enemy, and her lawyer sucks, too. I'm going to destroy this bitch. I'm going to absolutely destroy her. Her life will never be the same. . . She has a bad lawyer who gave her terrible advice.

Having already called Gerritson a "whore," Coleman calls her a "bitch" and threatens to ruin her life. Gee, imagine how ugly it would get if Coleman weren't such an upstanding Christian and Catholic, with seven kids. Coleman then boasts about others he supposedly has destroyed:

Mike Hubbard is going to prison; we did battle for years. Matt Hart and I did battle, he lost his job. An AM radio host and I did battle, and he lost his job. I don't lose, and I will blanking destroy you and everything you hold dear. Don't come after me unless you are fully ready to engage. Do not send me half-ass letters; that will not end well.

If you threaten me, I will burn your damned house to the ground. Not in the physical sense, but I will have you running back to Texas, I promise.

Apparently aware that he might be digging his own grave, Coleman tried to walk back the "I will burn your damned house to the ground" line by adding "not in the physical sense." Could that mean he won't burn your house himself, but someone else might -- at his behest? That's how I read it -- and he has ties to a convicted felon named Ali (Akbar) Alexander. Coleman keeps some pretty seedy company, so perhaps these threats should not be taken lightly. Is anyone awake at Bluewater Broadcasting? Are they aware of the liability they could face if something happens to Becky Gerritson, her loved ones, or her property? (It could run way into the millions.) Does anyone pay attention to the filth Coleman spews forth on the airwaves?

It doesn't get any better with the second clip (embedded at the end of this post), which aired on July 10, 2019:

I am on fire, en fuego I am ready to destroy people, and I can't wait to get started. I am going to win. I do not lose, ever.

You come at me, you lose everything. You threaten me, I sue you or destroy you. That's it. there is no third option.

There is going to be some real fireworks across this state in the near future. Some once-proud organizations will be brought completely to their knees and bankrupted. That's what I do. I don't "F" around. . . .

Have your gun under your arm. Bring your ammo.

Do Bluewater Broadcasting officials think that kind of rhetoric is appropriate in an environment where we just experienced two mass shootings in one weekend? Do sponsors support that kind of talk in the wake of El Paso and Dayton? What about the liability they could face? Does anyone hold Baron Coleman to standards?

Jeff Sessions provides more evidence that his mental faculties are failing, while U.S. Senate hopeful Bradley Byrne appears hopelessly out of touch with reality

Jeff Sessions

Former Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions provided more evidence over the weekend that his mental faculties are eroding. Meanwhile, a candidate for Sessions' old U.S. Senate seat sounds like his brain wattage is not so hot, either.

Sessions' most recent tussle with the language came Saturday when he addressed the Alabama Republican Party Executive Committee at the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex. From an article at Alabama Political Reporter (APR):

Sessions said that he was very proud of what he accomplished while he was Attorney General.

“No cabinet department did more to advance the Trump agenda than the Justice Department,” Sessions said.

Sessions said that he worked to make the DOJ less political. “It was time to end the politicization of the Department of Justice.”

Let's break that down into two parts:

(1) Sessions says the Department of Justice (DOJ), on his watch, did more to advance the Trump agenda than any other cabinet department -- even though long-standing rules hold the DOJ is to operate independently of the White House.

(2) Sessions claims he made the DOJ less political.

Statement No. 2 came mere seconds after Sessions admitted having worked to advance a political agenda in the nation's chief law-enforcement agency.

The notion that Sessions might be "out of it" mentally arose recently with the release of The Threat, a book by former FBI Director Andrew McCabe. From a recent report at Newsweek:

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions regularly and casually used shocking racist sentiments while serving in President Donald Trump's cabinet, according to a new book written by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

In his memoir—titled The Threat—McCabe paints a picture of an attorney general who struggled to understand the workings of government, was unable to stay on top of his busy schedule and blamed almost all the country’s problems on immigration, Washington Post reporter Greg Miller wrote in his review of the book.

In one particularly shocking exchange, Sessions reportedly told McCabe the FBI was a better organization when “you all only hired Irishmen.” Drawing on archaic and offensive stereotypes, he clarified, “They were drunks but they could be trusted. Not like all those new people with nose rings and tattoos—who knows what they’re doing?”

McCabe's portrayal of Sessions gets even more alarming:

Sessions’ views on race were described as “reprehensible” and constantly aimed to link immigration to crime, Miller reported. The attorney general “believed that Islam—inherently—advocated extremism,” while discussions about specific criminal suspects always began with the question, “Where’s he from?” quickly followed by, “Where are his parents from?”

Not only was Sessions outwardly ignorant about ethnic minorities, he also apparently struggled to keep up with the most basic demands of his job. The former Alabama senator—whom Trump reportedly once branded “mentally retarded” and a “dumb Southerner”—had “trouble focusing, particularly when topics of conversation strayed from a small number of issues.”

McCabe also noted that electronic tablets used to deliver the daily presidential brief to Sessions came back with no sign that he had even entered the passcode to view the important document. He not only failed to read other intelligence reports but also got confused between classified material and information he read in newspaper clippings.

Is Jeff Sessions out of touch with reality? Consider these words from APR's report on the speech in Birmingham:

“President Trump is making great appointments to the judiciary,” Sessions added. “We need another four years of good Trump judicial appointees.”

If that line doesn't make you guffaw, I'm not sure what will. A review of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings to the U.S. Supreme Court suggests Trump can't even nominate a decent human being, much less a good judge.

Bradley Byrne

As for the man who would claim Sessions old seat -- currently held by the oily Doug Jones, who is nothing more than a bootlicker for Rob Riley -- we are talking about U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Fairhope), who announced his candidacy last week. Byrne supports Trump's efforts to build a border wall and claims it is a matter of "fairness" and respect for "the rule of law." From a post at Byrne's blog:

Growing up, my parents taught me the basic values of fairness and following the rules. I think these values were common in households all across our state and country.

In today’s society, those two basic values need to be applied to the ongoing debate about illegal immigration.

In terms of fairness, we have people who are going through the legal process to enter our country, which takes time and effort, only to have people skip that entire process and just walk across our border illegally. That goes against the basic value of fairness.

Also, we are a nation built on laws, but currently illegal immigrants openly disregard the rules and laws of our country. By not holding them accountable, we are further encouraging a culture where the rule of law does not matter.

Immigrants disregard our laws? Has Byrne considered public officials from his own party in Alabama? In recent years, we've had a governor (Robert Bentley), speaker of the House (Mike Hubbard), and chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court (Roy Moore) forced out of office due to corruption charges.

As for Donald Trump, Byrne claims to agree with the president on almost all issues. But how does that square with Byrne's supposed concerns about "fairness"? Wouldn't it be fair for Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to have Mexico pay for a border wall, rather than U.S. taxpayers? And Byrne actually believes Trump abides by the rule of law? Perhaps Byrne needs to share that insight with Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

That should fly about as well as Jeff Sessions' claim to have been a non-partisan attorney general.

Alabama Ethics Commission, led by Republican racist Frank "Butch" Ellis of Shelby County, gives AG Steve Marshall a free pass on unlawful campaign donation

Steve Marshall and "Luv Guv" Robert Bentley

The Alabama Ethics Commission yesterday voted to give Attorney General Steve Marshall a free pass for accepting more than $700,000 in unlawful campaign contributions from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). In what should be a surprise to no one, the vote largely was engineered by Frank C. "Butch" Ellis, a commissioner from Shelby County, which widely is considered the most Republican, crooked, and racist county in Alabama.

From a report at al.com:

The Alabama Ethics Commission voted 3-2 today that there was insufficient evidence that Attorney General Steve Marshall violated the state campaign finance law.

Former Attorney General Troy King had filed the complaint and was at today’s meeting but left before the vote was taken.

King had alleged that Marshall’s campaign contributions from the Republican Attorneys General Association violated the state campaign finance law. Marshall has said the contributions were legal. King filed the complaint in July, while he and Marshall were engaged in a runoff campaign for the Republican nomination for attorney general. Marshall won the runoff and went on to win the general election over Joe Siegelman.

USA Today brought national attention to the RAGA donation in an article published on Nov. 5, the day before the midterm elections. How outrageous is the Alabama Ethics Commission's conduct in the Marshall matter. As we showed in a Dec. 5 post, it did not just start getting nutty with yesterday's vote:

Marshall, appointed AG in February 2017 before scandal-plagued governor Robert Bentley left office, defeated Democrat Joseph Siegelman in the November midterms despite national reports that he had accepted $735,000 from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which officials from both parties said violated Alabama law.

The Alabama Ethics Commission failed to resolve the issue before the Nov. 6 election, so complaints are pending, both with the ethics commission and the Montgomery County district attorney's office. Before the election, Siegelman noted that Marshall could be forced from office if the ethics commission applied state law properly.

Was there serious doubt the donation violated Alabama ethics law? Consider these words from Bill Britt, publisher of Alabama Political Reporter (APR), written on Oct. 11 about Marshall's cozy relationship with 3M, a major polluter in Alabama:

RAGA is not registered with the state and commingles its funds with other political action committees, masking the donors contrary to Alabama law. Ethics Commission Executive Director Tom Albritton knows Marshall’s contributions were unlawful, so does Secretary of State John Merrill, but no one is willing to act. Even Marshall himself is on the record saying the type of contributions he received from RAGA are illegal and banning such contributions was, “the only legal protection standing between Alabama voters and the reality or appearance of quid pro quo corruption.”

Troy King

 Perhaps the larger question for the Commission and the Alabama Republican Party is should a candidate who willingly takes illegal campaign contributions be allowed to remain on the ballot? . . .

The right remedy in the Marshall situation lies with the Alabama Republican Party, which is responsible for pursuing such violations and taking appropriate action, but the so-called party of law and order has taken a pass on the Marshall fiasco, choosing to remain silent.

So, even Republicans know the RAGA donations are unlawful, but Marshall is a favorite of the Mike Hubbard-Robert Bentley-Bob Riley wing of the party -- as evidenced by his recent firing of special-prosecutions chief Matt Hart. Does anyone expect that crowd to take ethics violations seriously?

APR reported yesterday that Troy King received notice of the hearing less than 24 hours in advance, and he was the primary complainant. That was a sign the fix was in.

Butch Ellis proved to be the fixer, a role with which he is quite familiar from his years of turning Shelby County into a racist, ethical sewer. How racist? Butch Ellis played a central role in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Butch Ellis' father, Handy Ellis, joined with notorious Birmingham Safety Commissioner Bull Connor to lead a walkout of Alabama delegates at the 1948 Democratic Convention. The issue of contention? Civil rights, primarily for black Americans:

Butch Ellis’s father was Handy Ellis, a former lieutenant governor and the chairman of the Alabama delegation at the 1948 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

With Birmingham Commissioner of Safety Bull Connor, Ellis led the Dixiecrat walkout of the convention after declaring that Alabama delegates were instructed “never to cast their vote for any candidate associated with a civil rights program such as adopted by this convention.”

Bottom line: Butch Ellis is the son of a prominent Dixiecrat, meaning he has been a thinly veiled white supremacist for much of his life. At yesterday's Ethics Commission meeting, Ellis stood up for the white elites who want a do-nothing AG like Steve Marshall, so they can keep Alabama as one of the most corrupt states in the nation. From al.com:

The commission heard a number of other cases behind closed doors today. After the commission reopened the meeting, Commissioner Butch Ellis made a motion that there was insufficient evidence that Marshall violated the state campaign finance law. Commissioner Beverlye Brady offered a substitute motion saying there were “ample facts” to show that Marshall had violated the law.

Butch Ellis

Brady’s motion was rejected on a 3-2 vote. Brady and Commissioner Charles Price voted for it. Voting no were Ellis, Commissioner John Plunk and Commission Chairman Jerry Fielding. The commission then voted to approve the Ellis motion on insufficient evidence on an identical 3-2 vote. That closed the case.

The Ethics Commission determines whether there is probable cause that the law was broken. Had Brady’s vote prevailed, the case would have been referred to a district attorney.

Brady and Fielding declined to comment on the case after the meeting ended.

Brady and Fielding probably could not comment because they were trying not to puke.

As noted above, complaints regarding the RAGA donation remain with Montgomery County District Attorney Daryl Bailey. Attorneys Julian McPhillips and Melissa Isaak apparently filed the complaint with Bailey's office because they expected a sham ruling from the Alabama Ethics Commission.

If that was the case, McPhillips and Isaak certainly proved to be on target. Is there any chance Daryl Bailey will be different, that he actually has respect for the rule of law? I'm not holding my breath.

Steve Marshall picks a political hack from the Leura Canary era to replace Matt Hart -- another sign heads must be exploding among Marshall's white supporters

Steve Marshall and Anna Clark Morris

Steve Marshall's pick to replace Matt Hart as special prosecutions chief in the Alabama attorney general's office is a political hack from the Leura Canary era. The choice of Anna Clark Morris, who had been an assistant U.S. attorney in the Middle District of Alabama, provides more evidence that the white elites who bankrolled Marshall's campaign are in a panic -- likely over the indictment of Trey Glenn, the fear that former House Speaker Mike Hubbard will go to prison and sing for prosecutors, the firing of Jeff Sessions as U.S. attorney general, and related issues.

Legal Schnauzer reported on Anna Clark Morris in a post from January 2009, shortly after Barack Obama became president. Titled "Are Democrats playing politics with prosecutors?" the post was based largely on analysis from a U.S. Department of Justice source who had seen Clark's work up close and was deeply unimpressed. Here is some background on Morris from the 2009 post:

At least one Alabama Democratic Party nominee for U.S. attorney would be no better than her Republican predecessor, according to a source inside the Department of Justice.

A state Democratic Party advisory council this week recommended Anna Clark Morris as U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. The Middle District, under the George W. Bush administration, was headed by Leura Canary, and her office handled the prosecution of former Democratic governor Don Siegelman.

Morris is an assistant U.S. attorney in the Montgomery-based office, with almost 11 years of experience as a federal prosecutor. She is the daughter of Alexander City trial attorney Larry Morris, a major Democratic Party contributor.

Morris might have Democratic roots, but she has worked under multiple Republican administrations, and our source says she fit right in with the dysfunctional, corrupt, and unprofessional atmosphere Leura Canary created:

The appointment of Anna Clark Morris would be "disastrous," a Department of Justice source told Legal Schnauzer.

"She currently works in the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's Office, where she is heavily invested in the culture of gossip, support-staff abuses, and maintaining the status quo," the source said. "An appointment of Clark Morris as U.S. attorney would be disastrous -- four more years of the same."

Our earlier post suggests Morris now is likely to enhance the brazen partisanship that already plagues Alabama's "justice apparatus":

An appointment of Clark Morris would smack of the kind of partisan politics that resulted in Leura Canary's appointment, our source said. Canary was appointed after she and her husband, Business Council of Alabama head Bill Canary, made substantial contributions to the Bush campaign and the Republican Party.

Our source also noted the irony of Democrats pushing Clark Morris to lead an office that prosecuted Siegelman for an alleged "pay to play" scheme involving a political appointment in exchange for campaign support.

A Clark Morris appointment would look like a "classic quid pro quo," the source said, "what federal prosecutors call 'white-collar crime' or 'corruption,' yet when it involves a DOJ insider, it is perfectly fine. Am I missing something here?"

Meanwhile, Alabama Political Reporter (APR) publisher Bill Britt blasted Marshall in an opinion piece, saying he has neither the integrity, emotional heft, or intellectual capacity to handle his job. From Britt:

Marshall did not terminate Hart because he was an ineffective leader or an unsuccessful prosecutor, but because Hart is both those things and more.

Marshall is evil, but he’s also weak, which makes him a dangerous man.

With Hart’s forced resignation, Marshall kept his private campaign promises to his big donors that Hart would be gone after the general election. So, just 13 days after his election as attorney general and four years until the next election, Marshall moved on Hart like a coward who shoots a lawman in the back in a Hollywood Western movie.

Marshall is a spineless little man who withers in the presence of a man like Hart. It’s not just his lack of character and willingness to cut deals to achieve power, but his utter disregard for the justice system he oversees.

Hart is not likely to stroll away into the good night, Britt writes:

While Marshall may have silenced Hart’s voice in the grand jury and at criminal trials, it is doubtful that Hart as a private citizen will remain quiet.

Hart knows what Marshall is up to, as well as the intrigue of the elites who paid for his office.

When disgraced Gov. Robert Bentley appointed Marshall, he intended for the men to clash. It was part of the plan. Bentley did not select Marshall because he was the best candidate to take on the attorney general’s position, but because he had a history of compromised investigations and virtually no record of prosecuting public corruption as a district attorney. But, it was Marshall’s willingness to investigate Hart and Van Davis, who successfully prosecuted former Speaker and convicted felon Mike Hubbard, that caused Bentley and his paramour, Rebekah Caldwell Mason, to green-light his appointment.

When Hart confronted Marshall over his compromise with Bentley, there was little hope that a working relationship would be in the making between the two men.

Marshall is afraid of Hart, but he is also jealous of him. After only a few weeks at the attorney general’s office, staffers noticed how jealous he was of Hart’s success, not only as a winning prosecutor but because of the admiration he enjoyed in the press. Staffers laughed at Marshall’s man-crush on Hart behind his back, saying he should grow a beard and maybe the press would like him, too.

It was Marshall’s jealously and unwillingness to ruffle feathers that separated the men; one wanting to be admired and the other wants to fight crime.

Over the last year, the relationship continued to strain as Hart set his sights on some of Marshall’s influential donors or those close to them.

Finally, Britt has ominous words that might give Marshall and his supporters pause -- hinting that the AG has secrets that could wind up biting him in the hindquarters:

Marshall can now say to those who put him in power, “Promises made, promises kept.”

But Marshall will do well to remember that actions have consequences, and there is a cost to corrupt acts, even if they are legal. More than one unscrupulous politico has met his fate at the end of a keyboard.

Marshall is saying he will take a hit from the media for firing Hart, but not a single elected official will say a word against him, according to those in the attorney general’s office.

Marshall believes that four years is long enough for people to forget he axed one of the state’s most successful prosecutors in the middle of multiple investigations to benefit his political donors.

But not everyone forgets, and there is a lot more to know about Marshall and what he has to hide.

Alabama AG Steve Marshall fires prosecutor Matt Hart, suggesting white elites who bankrolled Mike Hubbard's crime spree as House Speaker are in a panic

Matt Hart

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall yesterday fired special-prosecutions chief Matt Hart, a move that might signal the white elites who funded Marshall's campaign are in a panic because of recent events that threaten to unmask them. Those events include the indictment of Trump EPA regional director Trey Glenn, the firing of Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions, the evolving North Birmingham Superfund scandal, and perhaps more.

Hart, who has served as a prosecutor at both the state and federal levels, perhaps is best known for leading the case against former House Speaker Mike Hubbard -- who was convicted in June 2016 on 12 counts of ethics violations, but has not spent one second in prison because of a curiously prolonged appeals process.

Knowledgeable observers say Hart's firing probably was in the works for several months -- likely delayed only by the need for Marshall to win election in the Nov. 6 midterms -- driven by corporate and political interests who want to make sure Hubbard stays out of prison and isn't tempted to open up to prosecutors about his moneyed and power-hungry cohorts. Writes Josh Moon, of Alabama Political Reporter (APR):

The most feared man in Alabama politics has been fired.

Alabama prosecutor Matt Hart, who until Monday headed up the special prosecutions unit at the Alabama Attorney General’s Office, was unceremoniously fired by AG Steve Marshall. A brief statement from Marshall’s office said Hart resigned and refused to comment otherwise.

However, a source told APR on Monday that Hart was informed of the decision on Monday morning and given the option of resigning instead of being fired. He was then escorted out of the building by security.

The firing of Hart was not necessarily surprising to anyone who paid attention to the recent election and Marshall’s run for AG. As APR reported in numerous stories, Marshall accepted campaign donations from several sources with interests in weakening ethics laws and seeing Hart removed.

Moon noted some of the high-profile cases where Hart has been involved:

Hart’s career spans decades in the state and includes high-profile prosecutions of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

He was a particular thorn in the side of politicians who skirted the ethics laws. He prosecuted and earned a 12-count conviction of former GOP Speaker Mike Hubbard. He negotiated a guilty plea and resignation from former Gov. Robert Bentley. And his special grand jury in Jefferson County was digging through the scheme to undermine an EPA superfund site.

That last item (highlighted in yellow) caught the eye of Alabama political insider Jill Simpson. From a post at her Facebook page:

Notice a couple of things from Josh Moon article on Matt Hart. Matt was digging into the Superfund matter, which leads directly to the folks who helped Marshall get those $735,000 in illegal funds from RAGA [Republican Attorneys General Association] to win the attorney general race. Also notice Mike Hubbard's appeal is still up, and with Hart removed, Marshall and Rob [Riley] can let Hubbard go.

Al.com's John Archibald, who long has had a man crush on Hart, called the firing "the end of an era":

Anyone who watched Alabama government in recent years saw this coming.

They saw it when Marshall took tens of thousands in contributions from the company owned by Alabama’s richest man Jimmy Rane – who invested in a Hubbard business. They saw it when Rane, who made no bones about his contempt for Hart, gave hundreds of thousands to Gov. Kay Ivey and was appointed to lead her inaugural committee. He even lent his Great Southern Wood airplane for her campaign use.

They saw it when Marshall took campaign contributions from Hubbard investors, witnesses and supporters, and they saw it when Marshall looked down as Alabama politicians tried to chip away at the very ethics law that put people like Hubbard in court.

I don’t know exactly what happened this week to force Matt Hart out of his job as head of the special prosecutions unit. Hart declined to comment, and Marshall did not respond personally to the question. . . .

But it was no shock.

I predicted in April Marshall would show Hart the door as soon as he was re-elected. He was re-elected less than two weeks ago.

It doesn’t take an investigation to figure it out. The time was right. Marshall has four years to live it down before he comes back up for election.

He’s banking that Alabama will forget.

Unlike Archibald and Moon, I have reservations about Hart, particularly from his days as a federal prosecutor under the abominably corrupt U.S. attorney Alice Martin. I applaud Hart's work on the Hubbard case, but I'm not sure he deserves the "above-reproach, good-guy" label some have placed on him.

Like a lot of folks, Hart has a history of going along to get along in the workplace. Under the right leadership -- or given a free rein -- he can be effective. Under poor leadership, not so much.

Some already are speculating that Hart might return to his previous role as a federal prosecutor. If that happens -- and with Jeff Sessions ousted from the Department of Justice -- Hart might have a chance to help clean up a state that desperately needs it.

We saw signs during the Hubbard case that Hart might be interested in dismantling the Riley Political Machine, which forms the nexus for much of Alabama's corruption. In fact, that might be the No. 1 reason Marshall fired him. If Hart is, in fact, determined to take down the Rileys -- and lands in a position to do something about it -- the days of Alabama being a justice backwater might be over.