Veteran Investigator Calls for Impeachment of Siegelman Judge

A veteran investigator and journalist, who is in hiding because of apparent threats on his life, is calling for impeachment proceedings against the federal judge who oversaw the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

John Caylor, who has reported extensively on corruption in south Alabama and northwest Florida, says U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller acted corruptly in the Siegelman case and should be the subject of an investigation by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.

Caylor and Fuller grew up together in Enterprise, Alabama, which Caylor says became a destination point for organized-crime figures after nearby Phenix City was cleaned up in the 1950s. Caylor says Fuller has ties to the Dixie Mafia, a loosely knit outfit with connections to cocaine smuggling from South America.

"Mark Fuller is dirty," Caylor says. "I personally know he is dirty. Moreover, I know the whole damn bunch associated with him."

How does Caylor know? It's partly because of his own family ties to the Dixie Mafia. Caylor's father was police chief in Enterprise, a welcoming figure for mobsters looking for a new home after being kicked out of Phenix City. Fuller's father was a state district attorney in Enterprise.

Fuller, Caylor says, has held a longstanding grudge against Siegelman and railroaded the former governor as part of a sweeping effort by the George W. Bush administration to prosecute prominent Democrats. Caylor once lived near Karl Rove in north Florida, and says the former White House strategist directed the scheme to target Siegelman and others.

Caylor's mother was fatally beaten several years ago, and Caylor says Florida officials had her killed in retaliation for his investigative work, which is featured at his Web site, insider-magazine.com.

Some of Caylor's work, at first glance, seems "out there." But a number of sources whose opinions I greatly respect, both inside and outside of Alabama, tell me that Caylor is not a nut job--and his reporting focuses on issues that are real and serious.

Here is how Caylor describes his background:

I'm an Alabama-raised investigative reporter reared in Enterprise, which is located near the Gulf and became Alabama's center for the Dixie Mafia of organized crime. Mobsters moved to my hometown after Phenix City to the east forced them out following a particularly notorious assassination in 1954.

My jobs have included work as a private investigator and undercover federal drug investigator. In the course of such work or the social conversations growing out of it, I've met former CIA Director and future President George H.W. Bush, retired Cuban Mafia leader Santo Trafficante and Iran-Contra leader Oliver North.

One of my first jobs was as a photographer for Cliff Wentworth, an attorney and friend of my father's who would go on to become a notorious cocaine smuggler working directly with Colombia's most notorious kingpins, Pablo Escobar and Carlos Lehder, to distribute a billion dollars of cocaine throughout the Southeast.

Wentworth was later convicted and given a slap on the wrist: Six years, suspended after six months served in a country-club type minimum security facility. That illustrates the kind of federal judges we see in my neck of the woods who coddle their friends in such matters without any real scrutiny from Congress, the Justice Department or the media

When Caylor sought records about his mother's death, under Florida's Sunshine Law, he was arrested and convicted for disorderly conduct. Now free on bond, Caylor calls himself a "fugitive for justice" and is living in an undisclosed location.

Caylor's allegations about Fuller come in a lengthy article that was originally posted by investigative journalist Wayne Madsen at his subscription Web site. Madsen granted Legal Schnauzer permission to use the Caylor article.

What should be the focus of an investigation into Fuller and the Siegelman case? Caylor writes:

* One focus should be on Judge Fuller's long-running help for what Justice Department Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson described in 2005 to Rove's office as the "loyal Bushies." They included federal prosecutors nationwide who were framing Siegelman and other Democrats to remove them from office.

* Another focus must be on Fuller's already documented fraud, seeking $300,000 from Alabama's taxpayers in a scheme involving Doss Aviation, Inc., the former drug-smuggling company that Fuller controls as its largest stockholder.

* I am among the many who will step forward to testify on these matters. But first, the Judiciary Committee must take the lead to holding public hearings calling these criminals to testify public alongside whistleblowers. Do-nothings in the Justice Department will never start this on their own because too many secrets will come out.

Caylor's report includes revelations on a number of justice-related topics, and we will discuss it further in future posts. Part I of the Caylor article can be read in its entirety below:

John Caylor Article on Judge Mark Fuller

Siegelman Prosecutor Might Land Key Guantanamo Position

A lead prosecutor in the Don Siegelman case is close to receiving a JAG appointment as chief defense counsel for the U.S. Military Commissions in Guantanamo, a source tells Legal Schnauzer.

Stephen P. Feaga now is an assistant U.S. attorney, working for Leura Canary in the Middle District of Alabama. But our source learned from two senior Pentagon officials that Feaga is close to landing a position in Guantanamo.

Feaga was in Washington earlier this week to interview for the position with Jeh Johnson, U.S. Department of Defense general counsel.

If appointed to the Guantanamo post, Feaga would serve as defense counsel for terrorism suspects.

Those who have followed the Siegelman case surely will find irony in that. Feaga has been accused of pressuring a witness, Nick Bailey, to give false evidence in the Siegelman case. That fact was corroborated by U.S. Justice Department whistleblower Tamarah Grimes, who used to work for Feaga. The charges against Feaga apparently have never been fully investigated within the DOJ.

We have written extensively about Grimes, who was fired last summer just eight days after writing a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder about prosecutorial misconduct in the Siegelman case. (See the full Grimes letter to Holder below.)

Many of the misconduct charges focus on Feaga. For example, we wrote in a post dated September 29, 2009:

With the threat of disciplinary action hanging over her head, Grimes tried to ignore the misconduct. But it was hard to ignore overt negotiations of proposed testimony of key cooperating witnesses Nick Bailey and Lanny Young. The lead prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen P. Feaga, instructed investigators to meet with Bailey and Young frequently. Writes Grimes:

Mr. Feaga instructed the investigators how to approach the cooperating witnesses on a particular subject and specified what he needed the witness to say in order to support his prosecutorial theory. For instance, Mr. Feaga would say, "See if you can get him to say it like this . . . , " "Ask him if he is comfortable saying it like this . . . ," or "I need him to say it like this . . . ." The investigators would return from meeting with the cooperating witnesses to report to Mr. Feaga, who would send the investigators back with new instructions.

Grimes said that an FBI agent working the case came to say, "There is the truth, there are facts, and there are 'Feaga facts.'" As we wrote in September, quoting Grimes:

"Feaga facts" apparently were present in what proved to be the key testimony against Siegelman and Scrushy:

I particularly recall one meeting in which cooperating witness Nick Bailey was persuaded to recall something that he claimed he did not actually recollect. The matter concerned a meeting between Governor Siegelman and Richard Scrushy, a check and supposed conversation, which eventually led to the convictions in The Big Case. Mr. Bailey repeatedly said he did not know and he was not sure. The prosecutors coaxed and pressured Mr. Bailey to "remember" their version of alleged events. Mr. Bailey appeared apprehensive and hesitant to disappoint the prosecutors.

So "Feaga facts" were central to the Siegelman convictions, and now they could become part of the justice process at Guantanamo? That should be a frightening prospect for all U.S. citizens.

More insight on Feaga's tactics can be found in the full Tamarah Grimes letter to Eric Holder. That the Obama administration might actually appoint this guy to an important position is beyond alarming:

Grimes Letter to Holder

Will Smarts Translate Into Strength for Obama?

After Barack Obama schooled House Republicans last Friday in Baltimore, few objective observers could doubt he has the smarts to be an outstanding president, the kind we desperately need in troubled times.

But three recent news items raise questions about whether Obama has the strength, the resolve, to reach his potential as our nation's chief executive. In some instances, the Obama administration does not seem to be taking serious approaches to issues that matter greatly to many Americans--especially progressives who largely put him into office.

First, comes a report from The Times of London that one of Obama's former mentors has criticized him for running a "complacent administration." Chris Edley, one of Obama's professors at Harvard Law School and now dean of the School of Law at the University of California, says he would give Obama a so-so grade, so far, as president. Writes reporter Gilles Whittell:

President Obama’s self-confidence borders on complacency. He is ill served by senior staff, especially his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. He does not appear to be learning on the job as he did when campaigning for the White House. His Administration is too deferential to Congress, too reliant on the President’s personal charm, and as a result is regarded by its enemies as weak and ineffectual.

Whittell writes that this assessment might sound like it comes from one of Obama's right-wing critics. But it comes from Edley, a friend and supporter. Writes Whittell:

“What I fear is that having made history, having won a Nobel prize, having been celebrated around the world, a measure of complacency may have set in,” Professor Edley told The Times. “I don’t mean that the effort is not there, but that the discipline of self-criticism has perhaps faded.”

Professor Edley, who worked in the Clinton and Carter Administrations and is now Dean of the Law School at the University of California, Berkeley, added: “I wouldn’t give [Obama] as high a grade as President as I gave him when he was my student. I know he can do better.”

Edley has his toughest criticism for Emanuel and says he hopes the chief of staff soon will exit the White House:

“You’re not going to reinvent Barack into somebody who delights in pummelling a policy opponent, so his staff need to do that for him. And as far as one can tell from the outside, that is precisely what Rahm Emanuel has failed to do,” he said.

At Obama's invitation, Edley intervened on policy issues during the presidential campaign in 2007--with positive results. Writes Whittell:

Asked what he would say if given a similar opportunity one year into the Obama presidency, Mr Edley lamented the failure of the White House to force Congress into line, as President Lyndon Johnson would have done. “You have to be his inner LBJ, the leader who twists arms past their breaking point and is prepared to make some enemies in order to make some progress,” he said.

Perhaps Obama's greatest weakness has been on justice issues, particularly the investigation of possible crimes by members of the George W. Bush administration. That was the No. 1 concern of citizens who sent questions to Obama's Web site as he prepared to take office in January 2008. But as president, Obama has shown no interest in pursuing the matter.

Consider the Bush administration's legacy of torture. Scott Horton, of Harper's, writes that officials in Canada and Spain have been strongly critical of harsh treatment their citizens received at Guantanomo. In fact, Spanish officials have issued a decision that opens formal criminal investigations into alleged Bush-era torture practices.

What has been the Obama administration's approach to such concerns? Newsweek has reported about signs of a coverup regarding the actions of Bush-administration lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee. Writes Horton:

Meanwhile, in Washington, deep in Eric Holder’s Justice Department, a struggle continues over what to do with the ethics report of the Office of Professional Responsibility, reviewing the role of senior Justice Department lawyers in authorizing and implementing an extensive torture program. Five years in the making, the document was the subject of persistent political infighting as Bush-era officials sought to shut down or direct the investigation from which it arose. OPR concluded that Yoo and Bybee engaged in serious professional misconduct and recommended that their cases be referred to bar associations for appropriate disciplinary actions—a considerably softer punishment than the Spanish criminal investigators now have in mind. But David Margolis, the senior career official at Justice during the Bush years, sought to suppress or reverse the report. Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the report would be out in November; he acknowledged giving it to Margolis for final review and clearance. Now, two months later, it’s still nowhere in sight. But Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Dan Klaidman report Margolis’s efforts to gut the OPR report have proceeded.

Finally, we have a report that the Obama Justice Department is serious about at least one issue. If it isn't torture, what is it? Political prosecutions? Warrantless wiretaps? Nope, it's college football's Bowl Championship Series (BCS).

The DOJ is considering an investigation to determine if the BCS violates antitrust laws.

Let's see if we have this straight: We know of at least four citizens--Richard Scrushy from Alabama and Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield from Mississippi--who are being held as political prisoners for "crimes" they did not commit during the Bush years. A fifth citizen, former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, could be returning to federal prison if the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear his appeal.

The Obama administration does not want to "look backward" at such gross violations of civil rights. But it does want to "look backward" at the championship framework employed by college football?

These are the kinds of actions, and inactions, that make an administration look feckless and weak. Some of Obama's greatest admirers are voicing concerns about the messages the administration is sending. Is someone in the White House listening?

Stench From Anti-Gambling Task Force Grows Overpowering

Alabama Governor Bob Riley says his anti-gambling task force is designed to ensure that the rule of law is upheld in our state. But with each passing day, we learn details that indicate the task force itself is a sham.

The latest example comes with reports that John Tyson, the new commander of the task force, received more than $200,000 in campaign funds from political action committees funded by gambling interests. Some of those funds were solicited, and $100,000 came from Milton McGregor, owner of the VictoryLand casino that Tyson tried to raid last week.

On top of all that, we even have behind-the-scenes footage of a task force meeting that shows just how unhinged Alabama's governor has become over gambling.

But first, back to Tyson. How big a bozo is the new gambling czar? Well, reporter George R. Altman, of the Mobile Press-Register, shows that Tyson has serious problems keeping his stories straight:

"He specifically asked me for $150,000, and I told him that wasn't possible, but I flat sure gave him $100,000, and he wanted more," said Milton McGregor, owner of the VictoryLand casino near Montgomery.

Tyson, who remains Mobile County's district attorney after his January appointment by Gov. Bob Riley to head the gambling task force, told the Press-Register last week that he didn't ask for -- or even know of -- any contributions given to him by gambling interests.

Tyson clarified that statement Monday night, saying he did ask for and receive $100,000 from McGregor. Tyson said his statement last week was meant only to apply to contributions from Poarch Creek Indian, or PCI, Gaming.

McGregor is not the only person pointing out that Tyson has a loose relationship with the truth. Luther Winn Jr., CEO of the Eutaw-based gaming facility Greenetrack, said much the same thing. Reports Altman:

"The point is not where (Tyson) got his contributions from, but that he lied about it to the public and to the media," said McGregor. "He said he didn't take gambling money when in fact he did take it. Now he's in a very powerful public position as head of the task force. If he can't be honest, he should step down."

McGregor and Winn both said they heard from the Tyson campaign in 2006 that he thought their gambling venues were legal.

"He indicated to me, if we were operating under a constitutional amendment that Greene County had voted on and approved, then he had no problem with it," said Jerry Spencer, Winn's lobbyist.

Tyson said he didn't recall details of the conversations, but he likely said "something to the effect that, if you're legal, then you have no problem with me," without saying whether the VictoryLand or Greenetrack were themselves legal.

So Tyson said certain gambling venues were legal four years ago, and now he is trying to close some of them down? Makes a lot of sense.

Maybe we should expect such goofiness from any outfit that is led by Bob Riley. We've been wondering for awhile if the governor might be losing it. This exclusive video footage indicates that the gambling crusade finally has fractured the Riley administration. Disturbing stuff:

Around the Web With Legal Schnauzer

Our coverage of two major figures in the Deep South--Paul Minor in Mississippi and Paul Bryant Jr. in Alabama--has received notice recently in the blogosphere.

Joan Brunwasser, of OpEd News, interviewed me about our coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC and its possible impact on the Minor case. Minor's attorneys make a compelling argument that their client was prosecuted for alleged behavior that the nation's highest court now says is to be encouraged.

Brunwasser and I discussed the scary notion that the defendants in both the Minor and Don Siegelman cases were convicted largely because federal judges gave unlawful jury instructions. In other words, American citizens were convicted of "crimes" that do not exist.

That led Brunwasser to raise an issue that got to the heart of the matter:

Brunwasser: I don't know about you, but this makes me feel very insecure. If you can't depend on the law to stand behind you, and are actually fearful that the law can be used, or misused against you, what kind of system is this? And what can we do about putting justice back in the DOJ, where it belongs?

Legal Schnauzer: You raise very good questions. And that's why Obama's "look forward, not backward" approach on justice issues is so wrongheaded. In fact, I think it is already hurting him politically. The Massachusetts vote probably happened for a lot of reasons. But a little more than a year ago, the No. 1 question on Obama's Web site was about investigation of possible Bush-era crimes. That was a huge concern on the public's mind, and Obama has ignored it. He's paying a price at the ballot box.

People who have followed the Bush DOJ closely, as you and I have, know something smelly was going on. But even people who haven't followed the story closely, I think, sense that our justice system is broken--not only at the Supreme Court and federal level, but in many cases, at the state, county and municipal levels.

The fundamental problem, in my view, is that the law is a self-regulating profession. And until that changes, we will continue to have a "justice" system that is far too easily corrupted. And the Supreme Court just made matters worse by making it open season for corporations to buy justice--which they've pretty much been doing already, particularly in states like Alabama and Mississippi, where Karl Rove and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have shaped our courts to their liking.

So much attention is focused on health-care reform, and that is important. But our health-care system works well for a lot of people--those who have good insurance coverage. I'm not sure our justice works for anyone--other than lawyers and judges, who get quite wealthy off of it. It certainly does not serve the public.
I would submit that we need major legal reform every bit as much as we need health-care reform. But you almost never hear the issue raised.

You can check out the full Brunwasser interview here.

Our coverage of Paul Bryant Jr. and his company's ties to a massive insurance-fraud scheme in Pennsylvania, drew the attention of Dan Harralson, who produces The Sports Times Network.

We discussed Bryant's business activities and his influence over the University of Alabama and its powerhouse football program. A key question: Should someone with a history of questionable ethics in the business world be serving as a trustee at a major public university?

You can check out the full interview here, in an audio format.

Scalia and the U.S. Chamber: An Ugly Combination

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC opened the flood gates for corporate dollars to influence elections. That means the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its president, Thomas Donahue, must be salivating at the thought of manipulating our democracy even more than they already do.

Donahue & Co. are certain to be major players in the 2010 state and federal elections, reports Rebecca Abrahams at Huffington Post. She points to Mississippi as a cautionary tale that illustrates how the chamber stacks the legislative and judicial decks in favor of corporations--at huge cost to consumers.

For good measure, Abrahams reports, the chamber can rely on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to bail it out of tight spots.

Scalia pulled a game-changing stunt in Mississippi's 2000 election, helping to turn the state's high court over to pro-business interests. In late October that year, roughly a couple of weeks before the November election, the U.S. Chamber poured huge sums of money into Mississippi, in apparent violation of state election laws.

One of the chamber's targets was Oliver Diaz, who later became embroiled in the Paul Minor prosecution. Reports Abrahams:

Diaz says in late October 2000, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce began running vicious television ads against him saying he favored "drug dealers and baby killers" and that he should not be elected to the position. Diaz recalls his team had to scramble to combat the campaign.

"Right at the end of the election after we'd already budgeted for our ad campaign, the U.S. Chamber came in with well over a million dollars in the final weeks of the campaign. It was the first time they came into Mississippi so we didn't know it was going to happen. Nobody had ever seen this type of operation."

Five pro-consumer judicial candidates filed an injunction to keep television stations from the running the chamber's ads. A local judge granted the injunction, but the chamber sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue landed on Scalia's desk, and he allowed the ads to move forward.

What does Scalia mean to the U.S. Chamber? Abrahams provides insight, with the help of Florida-based trial attorney Mike Papantonio:

Trial attorney Mike Papantonio has received numerous multi-million dollar verdicts on behalf of victims of corporate malfeasance and says the U.S. Chamber of Commerce routinely relies on Justice Scalia for muscle:

"Scalia is the primary henchman. When you're out of plays and you've exhausted all of the efforts you go to a guy like Scalia. People don't understand what Scalia is all about. Look at his history--his father ran the American fascist party in New York. Not only that he attended the same schools those people attended. He is their man whenever they're in trouble. For example, you always see Scalia, the guy for emergency relief. I've got a verdict in West Virginia that Bobby (Kennedy Jr) and I tried, (an environmental class action case) against Dupont that received a $400 million jury verdict. If the State Supreme court doesn't take it away from Dupont, Dupont will try to get in some form a federal judge or emergency writ to a guy like Scalia. He is their last vestige of protection and he makes no bones about what his politics are and that's what you saw with the Diaz case in Mississippi."

Diaz managed to win the election, with the financial support of Paul Minor and others. But the U.S. Chamber's next tactic was to target Minor and Diaz with a bogus prosecution, in an effort to dry up a key source of funding for Democratic candidates. What does the Minor case say about the state of our union? Abrahams addresses that question:

Attorney Mike Papantonio says these cases are a grim example of a broken judicial system and the U.S. Chamber's control over it:

"People miss the idea that all the Chamber wants is a Supreme Court not really - the Chamber starts from the ground up to replace trial judges with political hacks.

If you were to take all the issues that the Chamber holds near and dear to them, this is the most important -- to close the courthouse door. They tried with Diaz. Diaz was one of many targets all over the country for god sakes. His case exemplifies their methodology. Even the effort to convict him wasn't as bad as was the process to convict.

Diaz didn't favor anybody but he at least gave the average person a chance at trial. He wasn't bought and paid for by the Chamber and the Chamber hated him for that.

He was willing to hold corporate America accountable when other Mississippi judges would not. He understood there was some semblance of justice that should be there when a corporation makes a product that kills people even though they make more money. That's not the case with most judges in the Deep South. They've been commandeered by the Chamber."

The Citizens United ruling could be viewed as a warning shot, Abrahams reports. Papantonio says President Barack Obama needs to follow Franklin Roosevelt's example in 1937 and declare war on the U.S. Supreme Court:

Papantonio warns if the GOP run Chamber is able to control the courts, Americans will have little recourse against corporations that commit tortuous acts. He says if victims could hold corporate wrongdoers accountable, litigation would be unnecessary.

"Any time you have industrialists that have an agenda - there's a strategy to completely scrap the judicial process that allows average people to fight back. I would love to say to corporate America and the Chamber, we don't need judges like Diaz if you'd at least be the middle of road. We don't need that if we can throw people in jail. But we're all keeping our eye on who's being elected to Congress while these s.o.b's have been working day and night on who's going to be trial judges, appellate judges and appointed to Supreme Court. But people don't understand the judiciary. It's no big deal until it's your child or your son who's horribly injured or you file a claim for discrimination. We don't care about the U.S. Chamber. The community is decimated with environmental problems and people just aren't connected on this kind of level. We still have the ability to turn this around but Obama needs to wake up."

Is Fraud-Tainted Money Helping to Fuel Alabama's Soaring Football Recruiting Costs?

University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban is being hailed as a master recruiter after leading the Crimson Tide to a national championship just three years after taking over a team that was about .500.

Thanks to nifty reporting from Jon Solomon of The Birmingham News, we now know one reason Saban is such a strong recruiter: He has a whole lot more money to use than did his predecessor, Mike Shula.

Thanks to our own reporting here at Legal Schnauzer, we have reason to ask this question: What is the source of these new-found recruiting dollars? Is it possible that one source is UA board member and financial booster Paul Bryant Jr., the head of a company that has been tainted by its involvement in a massive insurance-fraud scheme?

Alabama's dramatic increase in spending on football recruiting coincides with some curious actions Bryant took with his fraud-tainted company, Alabama Reassurance. Is that a coincidence? The answer to that question is unclear.

But we do know that in 2006, Mike Shula's last year as head coach, Alabama spent $237,774 on football recruiting. By 2009, that figured had more than tripled, to $750,045.

No wonder Nick Saban's a brilliant coach, with the university already planning to build a statue in his honor. Perhaps they should build the statue out of dollar bills.

Is it possible that some of those dollar bills are tainted by insurance fraud? Well, we've noted that Bryant decided to liquidate Alabama Reassurance in late 2007. That coincides with a massive spike in UA's spending on football recruiting.

At the time of its liquidation, Alabama Re had roughly $238 million in admitted assets. According to a 2006 report from the Alabama Department of Insurance, five partners (including Bryant) were involved with Alabama Re.

Did they divide up the loot among themselves? Did they invest it in other ventures? And how much of it came from fraudulent activities, such as those that landed Alabama Re in the middle of the Allen W. Stewart case in Pennsylvania?

Here is an interesting question: Was Nick Saban lured to Alabama with promises that his recruiting budget would be tripled? If so, who made those promises, and what funds did they plan to use?

Nick Saban, master tactician? Maybe. But money matters in most all endeavors. And we suspect a whole lot of football coaches could win championships with the setup Saban has at Alabama.

Lindsey Buckingham: Celebrating a Musical Genius

These are wacky days on the justice front. The U.S. Supreme Court has loosed corporate interests to wreak untold havoc on our democracy. Alabama Governor Bob Riley is waging a crusade on gambling that mixes Three Stooges buffoonery with middle-of-the-night, Gestapo-like tactics.

We could use a break from all the nuttiness. And what better way to get it than with a musical interlude from one of our Legal Schnauzer favorites, Fleetwood Mac guitarist Lindsey Buckingham.

Buckingham is best known for generating numerous monster hits for Fleetwood Mac, including "Go Your Own Way," "Big Love," "Tusk," "Second Hand News," and "Monday Morning."

But we have a special admiration for his solo work, which tends to float under the commercial radar. Buckingham long has been a quirky sort, given to experimentation on several fronts--with a dazzling finger-picking guitar style, inventive use of percussion, and a knack for lush, Beach Boys-esque vocal arrangements.

We have touted Buckingham's most recent solo work, 2008's Gift of Screws, as one of the hidden musical gems of recent years.

Buckingham's solo albums tend to not generate hit singles and radio airplay. So we were delighted to discover that two of our favorite cuts from the album can now be heard in live performances on YouTube. The videos are from an episode of A&E's Private Sessions.

The first is Love Runs Deeper, which would have been a massive hit if it had been written 25 years ago and released on a Fleetwood Mac album. Buckingham's wife, Kristen, provides assistance with the lyrics, and the results indicate that her appearance on the album is not just a throwaway to the missus. Her stuff is good, and you can check out the lyrics here:




The second cut is "Great Day," which Buckingham was inspired to write when he heard his young son, Will, fooling around and singing, "It's a . . . great day, great day." Dad thought that could be a song, and Will Buckingham receives a writing credit. The final result features some snapping percussion and a searing guitar solo at the end--along with vivid lyrics.

We don't like to throw the word genius around too often. But we think it applies to Buckingham. As you watch the guy's guitar work on "Great Day," keep in mind this is someone who has never had a music lesson. That's the kind of gift that can only come from some kind of higher power. And Buckingham's brilliance certainly helps us forget--at least for a little while--all the legal chicanery taking place all around us.

Enjoy.

Are Mississippi Casino Interests Influencing Alabama Government?

A group of people associated with Mississippi casino interests met in mid January to discuss ways to combat increased gaming activity in Alabama.

Is it coincidence that Alabama Governor Bob Riley, who reportedly received campaign support from Mississippi casino groups, ordered attempted raids on two Alabama facilities roughly two weeks after the meeting?

According to news reports in Alabama, a lobbyist named Gloria Williamson organized the meeting in Biloxi, Mississippi. Williamson just happens to lobby on behalf of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the group that reportedly spent $13 million to help get Riley elected in 2002:

The group met at Mary Mahoney's restaurant in Biloxi and was organized by a lobbyist for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, which runs a casino/resort in Neshoba County, Miss.

The Dothan Eagle cited an e-mail from the lobbyist, former Mississippi State Sen. Gloria Williamson, inquiring about possible joint advertising by the Mississippi casinos. The newspaper said it was not able to reach Williamson but that Mary Mahoney's owner confirmed the Mississippi casino interests did meet there.

Meanwhile, a number of Alabama newspapers are excoriating Riley on their editorial pages. The Mobile Press-Register, normally a pro-Riley paper, called the raids "embarrassing":

THE OMINOUS scene of police headlights as far as the eye could see conveyed the message Gov. Bob Riley wanted to send: A crime was being committed at Country Crossing, a crime so evil it required more than 100 state troopers to halt.

Too bad the troopers didn’t have a search warrant in their pre-dawn raids Friday.

If they had been hunting down bomb-toting terrorists instead of trying to shut down electronic bingo machines, the show of force might have made sense. As it was, the attempted raids of Country Crossing near Dothan and VictoryLand in Shorter looked like an abuse of power more suited to a police state than the state of Alabama.

The Dothan Eagle raised the specter of impeachment for Riley:

Some people applaud Riley’s efforts, citing Article V, Section 120 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901: “The governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Others believe he has no authority to act in such a capacity, particularly since Attorney General Troy King has repeatedly warned him that he’s coloring outside the lines.

That raises the consideration of another constitutional nugget. Article VII, Section 173, enumerates the process of impeachment of the members of the state’s constitutional officers. Whether abuse of power and gross waste of public resources are impeachable offenses isn’t clear.

One thing is: Bob Riley has frittered away hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds in a battle of wills at a time when the state budgets are under severe cuts and workers are facing furloughs or layoffs. Considering that his concerns could be addressed in a civil, understated manner, he should be held accountable for the money he has wasted.

Obama Still Doesn't Fully "Get It" About Republicans

By all objective accounts, President Barack Obama gave a rave performance last Friday before the U.S. House Republicans in Baltimore.

The president was so deft and sure-footed that you almost felt sorry for the GOP lions as they were devoured by a lamb in their own den.

We came away impressed with the president's intelligence and confidence (bravery?)--and his grasp of important issues. But we also sensed that Obama doesn't quite understand what Republicans are all about--or perhaps he understands them but feels he can't take needed action because of sinister forces currently at work in the country.

After reading a transcript of the Q&A session, you realize that almost every question was based on a false premise--and the questioners almost had to know they were being dishonest. To put it in blunt terms, the GOP inquisitors were trying to cheat Obama by throwing bogus questions at him while TV cameras were rolling. Their goal almost certainly was to embarrass the president and send a message of fear to voters.

Obama handled the situation so smartly that the Republicans "political cherry bomb" appeared to blow up in their faces. But the occasion spoke volumes about the modern Republican Party, and Obama showed no signs that he is willing to give the GOP the serious spanking it so richly deserves.

Why did the Republicans behave the way they did last Friday in Baltimore? Because they've learned that such nonsense works.

For roughly 30 years, since Ronald Reagan opened his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, with a speech about states' rights, conservative Republicans have been marked by four traits:

* A willingness to twist the truth for political gain;

* A willingness to act corruptly in order to gain and consolidate political power;

* A willingness to make expert use of the race-based fear card in order to attract middle-class white voters; and

* A tendency to govern in such an incompetent fashion that voters turn to Democrats to clean up Republican messes.

Obama clearly wants to break this dysfunctional cycle. But we fear he's going about it the wrong way.

The president tried to reason with Republicans last Friday--politely, but bluntly, calling them on their false statements. For good measure, Obama seemingly tried to shame them into realizing that they needed to work with Democrats in a bipartisan, constructive fashion.

But here, we suspect, is the ugly truth about the modern GOP: You can't reason with them, and you can't shame them into doing the right thing.

That's because the modern Republican political brand, shaped by Reagan with several dollops of Nixonian skulduggery, remains intact. It never has been discredited the way it should have been long ago.

Bill Clinton, elected to clean up Republican messes in 1992, let the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations off the hook for their probable crimes. Now, Obama appears to be doing the same thing with the George W. Bush administration.

If Obama really wants Republicans to change--and it would be good for the GOP, and our country, if they did--he has to use the right kind of force. Republicans are like spoiled brats, who need several whacks on their collective fanny with a paddle. Until that happens, they will continue to engage in destructive behavior.

The best way to change Republicans, and the course of modern American history, is to fully investigate and prosecute the apparent crimes of the Bush administration. The Nixon/Reagan family tree has spawned some truly wretched apples--Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, Dubya himself. Those bad apples need to be exposed and punished, so the GOP can begin the process of cleansing itself.

Obama, as the adult in the room last Friday in Baltimore, almost certainly understands this. But his administration clearly is reluctant to take action.

We wonder if that's because he knows the Bush family is little more than a glorified crime syndicate. And he knows that an investigation is not likely to stop with an underling such as Rove. Obama probably knows that the corruption went straight to Dubya, and the president must fear that pro-Bush forces might react violently if one of their own is sent packing to a federal prison.

Numerous reports have indicated that an extraordinarily high number of threats have been received against Obama. And that probably means security concerns also are high for his family members and administrative team.

Many of the threats apparently are race-based, coming from various skinhead and neo-Nazi groups. But we suspect that Obama feels threatened by forces that are far more powerful than skinheads.

Because of that, it appears that criminals in the George W. Bush administration never will be held accountable. And that means House Republicans are not likely to change any time soon.