Connect with us

Bill Britt

The shape of things to come?

Bill Britt

Published

on

By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter

Several decisions over the next few weeks and months could significantly affect Alabama’s future for generations. Among these are, the appointment of Senator Jeff Sessions’ replacement, the Special Supreme Court’s ruling in Chief Justice Roy Moore’s appeal and the findings of the Montgomery Grand Jury concerning Governor Robert Bentley.

Bentley is publicly holding casting-calls to find Sessions’ replacement upon his confirmation as US Attorney General. From a novice State representative to Chief Justice Moore himself, Bentley is parading potential candidates around like beauty pageant contestants. Each day the press publishes an ever-expanding list of hopeful nominees. It seems more like a charade than a selection process. Identifying the next junior Senator from Alabama is serious business, with little in common with the spectacle it now seems to have become. Perhaps, Bentley is using the Senate interviews to line up support for the billion dollar prison bill he plans to push in a special legislative session. Perhaps it is simply to hide his real intentions. With this Governor, the only thing you know for sure is that you don’t know.

Advertisement

The State Constitution says the Governor shall call a special election to fill the vacancy “forthwith.”

Speculation has ranged from Bentley calling for the election 120 days after appointing Sessions’ successor, to holding the election in 2018, two years before the end of that Senate term. The 2018 option would have the appointee running for election in 2020. If Bentley calls the election within 120 days of appointment, then the advantage goes to Attorney General Luther Strange, who has filed papers declaring his intentions to seek the positions in the next election, whenever that may be held. If Bentley opts to wait until 2018, the appointee holds the advantage because special national interest will have already staked ground with the appointed incumbent. This would mean Bentley and outside interests would narrow the people’s choice of their next Senator.

Sessions’ replacement should be an individual who will go to Washington for the citizens of Alabama. Senior Sen. Richard Shelby is a reliable advocate on behalf of the State, who has protected the State’s interest and sought advantage for the State at every turn. The next Senator must take up that mantel to ensure the State is not ignored in the Halls of Congress.

With the Republicans holding a slim majority in the upper chamber, the next Senator from Alabama must not come from the Party’s far-right Freedom Caucus or a stalemate will ensue. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will need flexible to negotiate, and in these matters, good ole Alabama pragmatism would be useful as well. Compromise will become especially needful with President Donald Trump at the helm. Look for The Art of the Deal to be a primer on negotiations for the next four years.

When the Senate reconvenes, Sen. Shelby will serve as the powerful Chair of Appropriation, a position never before held by an Alabamian. In the House, Rep. Roger Aderholt from Alabama’s 4th will be third in line on House Appropriations. It is worth considering the loss of House seniority should Bentley appoint Aderholt as Sessions’ replacement.

Perhaps there is a better way for Bentley to handle the appointment, a way that gives the people more say and opens up the field of candidates. Bentley could appoint a placeholder who, while representing the State wisely for the next two years, would also agree not to run in 2018.

Lt. Governor Kay Ivey is a public servant who could fill that bill with ease. Her agreeing to serve only two years would cap a long political career and allow for younger aspirants to cast their hats into the ring in 2018.

It is important to remember that Sessions’ replacement has a cascading effect on Judges, Marshalls, and other appointed positions.
Perhaps the greatest unknown are the desires of Bentley’s alleged mistress Rebekah Caldwell Mason? Anyone foolish enough to discount Mason’s influence in this matter is sorely out of touch with the realities of the Bentley Administration.

Another question which hangs like “the Sword of Damocles” over the prospects of an honest and proper due process of law in our State, is the fate of Chief Justice Moore. Currently, seven appointed judges are reviewing Moore’s suspension from the court. This panel of seven judges constitutes a Special Supreme Court that may uphold or dismiss the ruling of the Court of the Judiciary, suspending Justice Moore without pay for the remainder of his term.

Last week the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) which found probable cause to indict Moore on unethical conduct, refused to release the records that led to Moore’s conviction and removal. Citing a Constitutional right to keep the records confidential, the JIC is hiding behind an argument as thin as their collective skin and as unmoored from reality as their legal reasoning.

This past Sunday on The Voice of Alabama Politics, we revealed that two Supreme Court justices called for an investigation of the JIC after information about Moore’s indictment was leaked to certain media outlets. According to reliable sources, this is one reason the JIC is claiming confidentiality; but there may be more to the story.

At issue: Did Justice Moore receive a fair hearing? Was he afforded equal protection and due process? If he did, then what is the JIC hiding, if not the only course of action is for the Special Supreme Court to dismiss the case against Moore. Only by releasing the court records will the people be assured that Moore was not a victim of a political prosecution.

Finally, the Montgomery Special Grand Jury and it’s investigation into actions taken by Gov. Bentley to defame former Alabama Law Enforcement Secretary Spencer Collier and the use of State resources to facilitate his alleged affair with Mason.

This past week, Attorney General Luther Strange told a member of the press that he was meeting with Bentley about the Sessions appointment. When asked about an investigation into Bentley, the Attorney General gave a very “lawyerly” answer saying something to the effect of, “You didn’t heard that from me.” Some have taken this to mean there is no investigation or not enough to indict.

So, perhaps Special Prosecution Chief Matt Hart just wanted to visit with the Governor for a couple of hours, or wanted a little face to face with current and former Bentley staffers for a few days, who knows? If the Governor is not the subject of a Grand Jury investigation the Attorney General’s Office should say so publicly. Bentley’s administration is in shambles with rumors of Mason and Chief of Staff Jon Barganier holding budget meetings at the Blount Mansion.

Bentley will soon make the most significant appointment of his tenure, belief in the justice system is under suspicion in the Moore trial and the Governor is reportedly a suspect in a criminal investigation, and it’s not yet New Year’s Day.

With a 2016 that saw the felony conviction of Mike Hubbard the first Republican Speaker of the House since Reconstruction, it would be difficult to imagine what is next. But this is Alabama, where every plan is someone’s plot, every good deed has a price tag, and a good lie justifies what comes next.

Business as usual is no longer acceptable and the shape of things to come must be about the people of our State and not just those who serve themselves at their expense.

 

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Ethics Review Committee is a long con

Bill Britt

Published

on

After last week’s initial meeting of the Ethics Review Committee, it’s now apparent that the body, as far as its leaders are concerned, is not assembled to strengthen and clarify the state’s ethics laws but weaken it through a wholesale rewrite. In other words, the Ethics Review Committee is a prop in a confidence scheme.

It seems the real purpose of the committee is to provide cover for lawmakers when, during the 2019 Legislative Session, the current “toughest in the nation’s” ethics laws are gutted like a prize pig.

Doing away with the present statutes should come as no surprise since Republican lawmakers and some businessmen have worked to overturn the ethics laws since Republican Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard was convicted of 12 felony violations of the existing laws.

Advertisement

As in high stakes, poker lawmakers have “tells” which, when read, reveal their true intentions.

The resolution that created the Ethics Review Committee reads in part, “[T]he multiple piecemeal amendments over the last 40-plus years and the evolving interpretation of the Code of Ethics have created an environment where reasonable individuals can sometimes disagree on what is permitted and what is not with the result that qualified individuals are discouraged from seeking public office.”

Citing a law as old implies it antiquated and in need of replacement to fit the times. Piecemeal here is used as a pejorative to indicate the law is flawed because of so many additions. It also states that reasonable individuals disagree on what is permitted and what is not. Finding a reasonable person is a stretch, but what this means is when someone wants a way around the laws or breaks the law, they hire an attorney to argue about what the law means. Lastly, the authors of the resolution establishing the committee want the public to believe the laws discourage qualified individuals from seeking public office.

These are all talking points that only mean they are going to scrap existing laws.

It’s almost like the committee itself is an unwitting partner in a confidence trick. This move against the state’s ethics act feels like a “long con” in which, “a scam unfolds over a period of time and involves a team of swindlers, as well as props, sets, extras, costumes, and scripted lines,” according to Amy Reading’s The Mark.

The set-up began in earnest during the 2018 Legislative Session when Republican House and Senate leaders promised the public that the committee would use SB343 as the starting point for the review committee’s suggested changes.

But using SB343 as the underlying law on which to build is now being trashed.

At the end of the first meeting, Jefferson County Presiding Circuit Court Judge Joseph Boohaker asked, “Are we going to work in the existing Ethics law? Are we working on SB343? Or are we just starting from scratch?”

Ethics Commission Executive Director Tom Albritton, who co-chairs the committee, answered, “I think all three are possibilities. That’s what this committee should decide. If there are things you like about the existing law, then you can propose we keep those. If you like the Attorney General’s bill, then you can suggest those. If you want to start from scratch, then I would encourage you to present something to the committee that you do like.”

Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh introduced SB343 during the 2018 Legislative Session. The bill was painstakingly constructed primarily by the Attorney General’s Special Prosecution Division led by Matt Hart, a team assembled under former Attorney General Luther Strange that worked since August 2016, to deliver a comprehensive re-write of the Alabama Ethics Act. During the process, Hart’s team met with all the significant stakeholders which amounted to more than two dozen different groups consisting of attorneys, lobbyists, associations, prosecutors and university officials, as well as direct discussions with the Legislature, including Othni Lathram, the director of the Legislative Services Agency.

According to sources within many of those discussions, there was universal agreement that SB343 satisfied the concerns of the various interests.

The committee may be comprised of exceptional individuals, but the fix is in, and the grifter’s prize is a return to a lawless Legislature led by those who serve themselves, not the people.

The game is on, and mischief is afoot. It’s a con.

 

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | Cobb’s pledge sets a trap for rivals; Very Trumpian

Bill Britt

Published

on

Democrat gubernatorial candidate Sue Bell Cobb, last week, put forward a campaign pledge as cover for her failure to vet a field director who is a registered sex offender.

Rather than admitting her mistake and firing the sex offender and the staff member who hired him, she tried to change the subject by blaming the media, pointing her finger at Republicans and asking her opponents to sign a pledge to play nice.

The pledge itself is little more than a cleverly disguised Faustian bargain, in which she attempts to trick her rivals into agreeing to a promise that serves her end but not theirs.

Advertisement

Second from the bottom, the pledge reads: “REFUSE FUNDING any group requiring financial support in exchange for an ‘endorsement.'”

This coming Saturday, the Alabama Democratic Conference (ADC) will meet to choose which candidates it will support in the June 5 Democrat primary. With the ADC’s endorsement comes an explicit understanding of financial support. It appears Cobb is conceding she will not receive ADC’s endorsement and doesn’t want one of her opponents to benefit from the group’s support.

Cobb learned something from her 30 years on the bench, which seems to be how to hide a trap inside a seemingly innocuous document.

Every Democratic candidate wants ADC’s endorsement, and everyone needs it.

Four of the five candidates running for governor under the Democrat banner signed the pledge. Tuscaloosa Mayor Walt Maddox called it a “stunt,” and didn’t sign.

Now if one of the other four office seekers should win ADC’s endorsement, they would have to refuse it to comply with Cobb’s pledge.

Of course, Cobb’s presser last week was an unmitigated disaster. From its premise to its ending, Cobb showed her inability to understand the fundamentals of decency, much less the vital role of the press. Has Cobb basked so long in the warmth of an adoring liberal press that she couldn’t realize that not everyone swoons when she takes the stage? Or has she fooled herself for so long that facts no longer matter?

Since resigning her position as Alabama’s chief justice, Cobb has given at least six different reasons why she stepped down, so either she doesn’t know why she surrendered her office to Judge Roy Moore or has yet to decide which version of the facts plays best with her audience.

As if to take a page from President Donald Trump’s playbook, Cobb, last week, strolled in front of the cameras, denounced the dishonest press, defended paying a sex offender $40,000 —over the course of two months—and then duped her opponents into signing away their legal rights and the ability to receive a coveted endorsement.

Cobb’s pledge also states, “MAKE PUBLIC all expenditures placed on behalf of my campaign whether paid directly or through consultants.”

Alabama’s FCPA law doesn’t require candidates to disclose such expenditures. Here, Cobb once again is not looking to make the race fairer but to take away a lawful advantage she believes her rivals are using.

Furthermore, Cobb made a fool of herself at her most recent presser by saying the arrest of her campaign field director, sex offender Paul Littlejohn III, was politically motivated.

Jefferson County Chief Deputy Randy Christian called her out  saying, “How sad that a candidate for governor supports a convicted sex offender over sexual assault victims.”

Chief Deputy Christian points out what is perhaps the worst part of this whole sorry affair – Cobb, rather than remembering the victim, put the entire focus on herself.

Cobb’s pledge was meant to deflect and distract from her failure to identify and fire a sex offender. Instead, she deceived her opponents by persuading them to sign a phony pledge.

Very Trumpian.

Full pledge:

The Republican leaders of all three branches of our government have faced scandals and been removed from office. We must do better. Legitimate journalism is under attack while paid, partisan websites flourish unchecked. We must demand better. As a candidate for the highest elected office in Alabama, I will hold myself to the highest standards of ethics, pledging to:

ABIDE BY all campaign laws and procedures;

REFUSE TO defame the character of my opponent, his religious beliefs, his family or his lifestyle, or to condone the actions of those who do;

CONDEMN the use of campaign materials of any sort that falsify the facts regarding my opponent, his professional accomplishments, or his personal background;

CONDEMN any appeal to prejudice or bigotry;

DISAVOW PUBLICLY any material or advertisements that are not factually accurate or that fail to disclose the identity behind such campaign activities or the source of funding;

MAKE PUBLIC all expenditures placed on behalf of my campaign whether paid directly or through consultants;

REFUSE FUNDING any group requiring financial support in exchange for an “endorsement.”

SHARE copies of this pledge to my campaign workers, volunteers, and key supporters.

This 10th day of May, 2018.

 

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

BCA, ALFA and PCI support candidates with a history of misogyny

Bill Britt

Published

on

BCA's Billy Canary, left; ALFA's Jimmy Parnell, top-right; and PCI's Robbie McGee, bottom right, are backing two candidates for elected offices with a history of physical abuses or covering for sexual assault.

In the era of the #MeToo movement, it should be shocking that the Business Council of Alabama, the Alabama Farmers Federation and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians are supporting men for statewide office who have either protected sexual predators or are themselves accused spouse abusers.

The popular novel, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo,” was originally titled “Men Who Hate Women.” Written by Swedish author Stieg Larsson, it chronicles how powerful men use the levers of government, establishment-institutions and cronyism to rob women of their humanity in the most degrading acts of defilement imaginable.

It would seem here in Alabama that some at BCA, ALFA and PCI are taking a page out of  Larsson’s book by offering misogynistic candidates covered under a veneer of their company’s respected logos.

Advertisement

Court records show BCA’s Billy Canary, ALFA’s Jimmy Parnell and PCI’s Robbie McGee are backing two candidates for elected offices with a history of physical abuses or covering for sexual assault.

Hand-picked by ALFA’s President Parnell, with financial support from Canary and McGee, Agriculture and Industry candidate Rick Pate, according to court records, abused his wife so severely that the court ordered that he not enter the marital home because his wife feared for her life.

“The Wife avers that the Husband has committed actual violence to her person and from his manner and conduct toward her, she is reasonably convinced that he will commit further violence upon her person, intended with danger to her life and health,” the record said.

In a handwritten note provided to the Alabama Political Reporter, the former Mrs. Pate recanted her sworn testimony saying she and her first husband now have an excellent relationship.

However, at the time of their divorce, the court granted her request of, “a restraining order strictly enjoining and restraining,” her Husband from “entering the resident premises…assaulting, threatening, or intimidating,” her.

BCA-backed candidate Attorney General Steve Marshall used the power of his office to protect a man who, according to court records, sexually assaulted a co-worker in an act that a U.S. district judge described as “horrific.”

After woman’s “horrific” sexual assault, what did Steve Marshall do?

Instead of firing the accused sexual assailant, Marshall sought to isolate and punish the victim before defending the perpetrator in court.

In the victim’s own words, she recounted the attack in court saying, “He had me pinned with my back against the wall … I kept saying stop, stop, get off me, stop. Stop it. He was trying to put his mouth on me. I could still feel his hot breath on my neck. I felt like I absolutely was going to die. I couldn’t move him because he was so heavy. He kept pushing his hands — he had one hand on my breast underneath the top part of my bra. I could feel his fingers on my nipples. The other hand, again, I could feel he was at the top of my pubic area. And I knew I had to stop him.”

Marshall did nothing to protect his female employee. In fact, he moved her to a basement office where she feared another attack.

Pate wants to represent the state’s largest industry here at home and abroad. Marshall is to be the state’s top lawyer defending the state and prosecuting its worst criminals, yet when women were involved, neither Pate or Marshall could be counted on to protect them, according to court documents.

That ALFA, BCA, and PCI would support such candidates with personal endorsements, and large sums of money are not lost on some members of the Republican Party. In a letter given to APR by a member of the Alabama Federation of Republican Women, it pleas with other women to, “Let’s prevent another black eye on our state and our party.” It further states,”In order for us to prove that we do care about our members and share their conservative family values; we must reconsider our support of Rick Pate or be forced to defend our support of him. If not, our lack of action once we became aware of his history of violence towards women will be our downfall.”

Did Canary, Parnell and McGee not vet Marshall or Pate? Did they simply not care that both men have a history of neglecting or abusing women?

What does it say about the female members of BCA, ALFA and PCI when their organization supports men who protect molesters and abusers?

The #MeToo movement is sweeping our nation, but in Alabama, Canary, Parnell and McGee using the force of BCA, ALFA and PCI are sweeping  misogyny under the rug.

 

Continue Reading

Authors

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

The shape of things to come?

by Bill Britt Read Time: 6 min
0