Connect with us

Bill Britt

I believe Judge Roy Moore

Brandon Moseley

Published

on

By Brandon Moseley
Alabama Political Reporter

I prefer the grind of every day reporting to sharing my opinions with the readers. I let Bill, Josh and Joey focus on the opinion writing, which they do so well. This time I will make an exception. We are now in the start of the third day of a carefully orchestrated character assassination of the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, Judge Roy Moore.

If we are to believe his accusers, Roy Moore dated a number of 16, 17 and 18-year-old young ladies in the late 1970s. As I read the current law, it is perfectly legal to have consensual sexual contact with a 16-year-old in Alabama. That is not considered abuse or a crime. It is still legal, and likely was in 1979, and most of the accusers say that their dates with Moore never got much more exciting than some kissing and Moore playing his guitar. One of the ladies, who was 18 at the time, says that Moore served her alcohol. Alabama did not raise the drinking age to 21 until 1984.

The most troubling allegation is that Roy Moore went out with a 14 year old, took the willing young lady to his trailer where he removed her shirt and her pants and then there was some touching of private parts through the underwear. When she got uncomfortable with it, she shut it down, and that was that. It is illegal to have sexual contact with 14 year olds. I am not a lawyer and have never seen what the Alabama statute read during the Jimmy Carter administration. But according to my lay reading of current Alabama law – which admittedly was written 27 years after this alleged incident, that act today would likely be sexual abuse, a Class A misdemeanor. One attorney has already told me that he does not think we even had a sexual abuse statute on the books in 1979. This is a 38-year-old cold case of an incident that may or may not have happened. This is never going to see any court.

That being said, how can any of us really know what might have happened in a trailer in Etowah County in 1979? Those of us who want to believe the best in Roy Moore believe his account and think the WaPo story is false.

Those of us who want to believe the worst about Roy Moore will believe the worst about Roy Moore and are inclined to believe his accuser. If we are all intellectually honest, we don’t have any video, DNA evidence, eyewitness accounts — other than Moore and the accuser, the testimony is 38 years old, so facts blur.

Roy Moore is innocent until he is proven guilty, and I don’t see this case ever being brought to trial. We just have to accept that we are never really going to know with any certainty what happened on that day in 1979, or if the two even met that day.

Advertisement

We now have had three days of histrionics about this in the mainstream media. Every talking head on cable news has an opinion on this, even though most of them have never stepped foot in Alabama, have never met any of us, including Judge Moore or his accusers, and will move on from this story when it plays out, or they find something more titillating for them to chatter about in front of the cameras.

Again, I — unlike any of them — have actually met Judge Moore and have known him, either through my journalistic work or through Republican politics for almost 20 years. Judge Moore believes what he says he believes, and I trust him on this.

The once respected Washington Post has changed ownership and has become the leftist version of the right’s Breitbart News, an increasingly low-brow publication that aligns itself with progressive causes and the Democratic Party. In this story, they have hit a dangerous new low for political journalism. If you like their reporting, send them a check so they will let you through their paywall.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Going 38 years back into the past to talk to the former girlfriends or boyfriends of a political candidate — or people who claim to be former love interests of candidates — is incredibly sleazy, and it is disgusting that the editors at the Post thought this was somehow a newsworthy endeavor for them to pursue.

I like Roy Moore, and I am certainly not going to vote for Roy Moore’s opponent, Clinton-era U.S. Attorney Doug Jones (D). I have nothing personal against Jones. I just think his positions and ideas are far too liberal for Alabama to seriously consider for even one moment.

Even though I would like to see Moore win and Jones lose, I will swear to all the readers right here and now, that I, as a journalist, will never stoop to interviewing any of Jones’ former girlfriends from before his marriage. I don’t know whom Doug took to the prom. I don’t want to know where they went after the prom, and I don’t want to know what age his date was or if he tried to initiate sexual contact or not, and who touched who where and what clothes were removed and by whom.

With the exception of those of you who are test tube babies, all of us are here because our moms, at least once in their lives, let our dads do what dads wanted to do all along. I hope that was not an upsetting revelation to anyone.

Roy Moore never claimed that he was God, and neither did he ever claim that he is without sin. I never thought that the kinds of things that happen in human mating rituals was news and never thought that the candidates’ premarital love lives were the sort of thing that we as investigative journalists should really devote our time and talents toward exposing in such detail.

I know there is a market for voyeuristic celebrity gossip out there. I let TMZ and People Magazine cater to that market, and apparently, the Post wants to colonize that space now, as well.

I know that I am getting old, and my ways are not as ‘hip’ as some people’s in this business, but at its core, this business is supposed to be about news. We report about real people, real issues, real policies in the now.

The sexual adventures of Roy Moore after he got home from fighting for us in Vietnam is not a topic I ever thought would be a headline here or anywhere else. Thank you, Washington Post, for becoming a more sleazy version of the National Enquirer. What’s next? Ranking all the former love interests of Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump?

I would not want my byline associated with this kind of gossip-level reporting in any way. None of this is relevant to my life, and none of it is relevant to anybody’s lives here and now in the state of Alabama.

We have real problems. We have real issues. There are things I want to see done by the federal government in the next four years. What do you believe we should be doing on health care, on taxes, on immigration, on the border wall, on reforming Washington D.C., on protecting religious liberties, on guns?

I will be voting for Roy Moore because he is the candidate most likely to pass tax reform, vote to cut down on out-of-control immigration policies, confirm conservative judges. Why would anyone change their vote based on these accusations? You either agree with Roy Moore’s views on the issues, or you agree with Doug Jones’ views. This sensationalized journalism I don’t think has any place in a rational person’s decision-making process.

You vote for the person with the agenda closest to your own. For me, that is Roy Moore.

Moore is the candidate who will vote to confirm conservative selections to the Supreme Court; steadfastly defend our Second Amendment rights; vote for Republican budgets that make America great again by increasing defense spending; keeping Alabamians employed in defense sector jobs; fight for religious liberty; and oppose abortion.

Doug Jones posted pictures of himself partying with Planned Parenthood. Jones will not fight to protect the lives of millions of pre-born Americans; support President Donald J. Trump’s agenda; vote to repeal Obamacare; fight to repeal Obama administration era regulations that shut down American coal jobs and sent our jobs overseas; fight to decrease the regulatory state; or advance conservatism. Moore is the conservative candidate. Moore is the pro-life candidate.

A vote for Jones puts Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders one vote closer to control of the U.S. Senate, and the current Republican majority is just two seats.

Whatever you believed happened 38 years ago, that should not sway Alabamians from voting for the candidate who most closely shares our conservative Alabama values, and that is Roy Moore. Don’t be swayed by emotion or the mainstream media. They do not share any of our Alabama values and do not care about us or our beliefs. They have made that abundantly clear over the years.

It is time for Republicans and conservatives to vote with our brains and not be swayed by media hysteria and the politics of personal destruction.

 

Advertisement

Bill Britt

Opinion | Deception, subtlety and the wholesale destruction of current ethics laws mark proposed rewrite

Bill Britt

Published

on

Legislation proposed by Rep. Mike Ball, R-Madison, would radically alter the existing State Ethics Act rendering it useless as an effective tool to regulate the behavior of public officials, much less prosecute a rouge lawmaker.

Testifying at a pre-trial hearing in the criminal case against then-Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard in April 2015, Ball said the ethics laws needed amending to avoid prosecutions like Hubbard’s in the future.

If HB179 becomes law, Ball will have fulfilled the words he spoke at the Lee County Court House, where Hubbard was tried and convicted.

As House Ethics Committee Chair, Ball has sought to change the State’s Act since Hubbard was indicted.

Ball’s bill is subtly written from an enforcement and trial perspective to neuter the law.

Words are added, deleted, and meanings changed in ways that might look harmless but actually open the door for the kind of corruption Republicans vowed to change in 2010, when they passed the toughness in the nation’s ethics laws.

Beyond changes that would allow for general corruption to go unpunished, Ball’s legislation would strip the Attorney General and district attorneys of their power to prosecute anyone who violates the ethics laws without first securing approval from the State Ethics Commission.

Advertisement

All prosecution of any public official would first have to be approved by the Ethics Commission, a group that has repeatedly shown that it bends its decisions according to the prevailing political winds.

HB179 reads in part, “This bill would prohibit the Attorney General or a district attorney from presenting a suspected ethics violation by an individual subject to the code of ethics, other than a member or employee of the commission, to a grand jury without a referral by the commission.”

In other words, Ball would have a politically-appointed commission decide if law-enforcement agencies can seek indictments against wrongdoers.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Neither the Attorney General or a county district attorney can even impanel a grand jury in an ethics probe without the commission first finding probable cause.

Some of Ball’s alterations come in the form of removing whole sections of the law under the guise of redefining words, like “a thing of value” or “widely attended event.”

An example of how Ball’s legislation plays with the law is under the section of code, which defines a family member of a public official. Currently, a family member is “[t]he spouse, a dependent, an adult child and his or her spouse, a parent, a spouse’s parents, a sibling and his or her spouse, of the public official.” Ball changes it so it only includes a spouse and a dependent. That means that a public official may act to enrich his adult children, a parent, an in-law a brother, or a sister. These small but destructive alterations to the law are at the heart of Ball’s legislation.

Some loopholes are so extensive that a sitting legislator could be paid by a city or county governmental economic development entity and still seat in the Legislature voting on bills that might directly affect his consulting client.

Out-of-state junkets make a comeback as do several other goodies lawmakers have been desiring.

It seems Republicans want to cash in on the rewards of office like Democrats did once upon a time.

One thing is clear, Ball didn’t write the bill, but whoever did knew precisely what they were doing and were probably paid handsomely for their efforts.

There are so many cunningly deceptive changes to the ethics laws in Ball’s bill as to make it impossible to catch them all without days of intense study—and perhaps a team of lawyers.

Ball, one of Hubbard’s most an ardent defenders has said Hubbard’s indictment and conviction was a political witch hunt. He has said he wants to rewrite the ethics laws to save future Hubbards; it now looks as if he has.

 

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | PCI’s billion dollar plan raises questions

Bill Britt

Published

on

Over the last few months, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians has flooded the state with an advertising campaign touting a billion-dollar package labeled “Winning for Alabama.”

How the plan benefits Alabama is a fuzzy moving target, but there are many advantages for the tribe.

Beyond giving PCI a monopoly over Las Vegas-style gaming, it also cements PCI’s tribal status.

Since 2009, PCI and other tribes federally recognized after 1934, have lobbied Congress for a “Carcieri fix,” to guarantee they are safe from losing federal recognition and with it the right to operate tribal gaming.

In Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the phrase of tribes “now under Federal jurisdiction” in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, referred only to those tribes that were federally recognized when the act was passed. PCI wasn’t recognized until 1984.

A compact with the state would end the threat  that hangs over PCI and its billion-dollar casino empire in Alabama.

Over the past several years, U.S. Congressman Bradley Byrne—who is now running for Senate—has pushed legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives to protect the tribe from any challenges under the Carcieri ruling. Byrne’s efforts have been unsuccessful due to resistance from Alabama’s senior U.S. Senator Richard Shelby.

Advertisement

Poarch Band of Creek Indians face uncertainty

Byrne saw his 2018 legislation falter when Shelby made it known the bill would not get a hearing in the Senate.

At the time, APR contacted Shelby’s office for comment, “Senator Shelby does not support the bill and has no plans to do so in the future,” wrote Shelby’s communications director, Blair Taylor. Likewise, APR reached out to Gov. Kay Ivey’s office where then-spokesperson, Daniel Sparkman, told APR, “Governor Ivey has no plans to write such a letter,” encouraging Senator Shelby to support a Land Reaffirmation Act.

Advertisement
Advertisement

A compact with the state would likely end any further concerns over a Carcieri fix.

While PCI is courting voters and lawmakers, ultimately, it is Gov. Ivey, who has the authority to negotiate a compact with the tribe. At this juncture, Ivey’s thinking isn’t known, but given her history, she will look hard and long at any gaming plan that requires her signature to enter into a compact with PCI.

PCI’s proposal raises several questions, not the least of which are “can the state give the tribe a monopoly over table gaming, and how much money will the state actually receive from PCI’s plan?”

The proposal is vague in specifics and the math is hazy  at best, but according to PCI’s website and promotional materials, the plan includes: “$725 Million in combined license and compact fees from existing properties and two new locations, PLUS $350 Million in projected tax revenue and revenue share from gaming, including sportsbook and table games, PLUS.”

For the one-time payment and projected future tax revenue, PCI wants the state to enter into a compact with the tribe and also give them exclusive rights over table gaming throughout the state. That is giving a lot for little return when in fact a state lottery with all the bells and whistles could produce around $400 million in tax revenue for the state without giving anyone a monopoly.

Opinion | There’s a better gambling deal to be made

All tribal gaming falls under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, which lists the different categories of gambling permitted by tribal entities.

Currently, PCI operates class II gaming in Alabama.

Class II gaming, according to IGRA, are:

“Bingo, pull-tabs and other similar games, including non-banking card games not prohibited by state law.”

IGRA states that PCI can only offer games that are “not prohibited by state law.”

The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that electronic bingo machines are illegal. However, PCI offers electronic bingo at its facilities in Atmore, Montgomery and Wetumpka.

IGRA also states, “Expressly excluded from Class II gaming are banking card games, such as blackjack or slot machines of any kind.”

To offer blackjack, roulette, or other table games, PCI would need a compact with the state, which must be negotiated by the state’s governor, which presently is Ivey.

Class III games are according to IGRA: “All forms of gaming that are not included under Class I or Class II, such as blackjack and slot machines.”

Other provisions of Class III conclude that “the games are located in a state that permits gaming for any purpose by any person.”

This section of IGRA would seem to prevent the state from granting PCI exclusivity over Class III Las Vegas-style gaming, but this is a question that will be answered by attorneys.

PCI has done very well since it became a de facto gaming monopoly in the state as a result of then-Gov. Bob Riley’s bingo wars.

Year after year, PCI and its Republican allies in the state Legislature have killed any lottery or gaming plans that threatened the tribe’s monopoly.

The billion-dollar plan is seen as tempting to some lawmakers, but its success or failure rests with Gov. Ivey, who is responsible if a compact with the tribe is to be negotiated.

Many unanswered questions must be considered before the state should entertain PCI’s billion-dollar plan; perhaps most importantly, how does Carcieri v. Salazar affect the tribe’s federal standing and what are the benefits for the state?

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | PCI supported President Trump’s rivals but want state Republican to do their bidding

Bill Britt

Published

on

In 2016, Alabamians overwhelmingly supported Donald J. Trump for president. The Poarch Band of Creek Indians, however, put the majority of their money behind his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

PCI gave Clinton $150,000 in 2016, but only $25,000 to Trump. Likewise, in 2012, PCI contributed $135,000 to Barack Obama. In both elections, the Poarch Creeks sided with Trump’s nemeses.

Even after Clinton’s loss, PCI donated $203,400 to the DNC Services Corp./Dem. National Committee.

In fact, of the 13 most substantial contributions made by the tribe in federal elections over the last several years, eleven donations went to Democrat candidates or organizations while only two went to Republican causes.

If money is the mother’s milk of politics, then PCI’s top donations are nourishing Democrats nationally and starving Republicans.

In a pro-Trump state, the Poarch Creeks —who backed Hillary for president—are asking Republican lawmakers to give them a state-sanctioned monopoly over gaming.

Principled Republicans might see a problem with giving so much power to a group whose money goes to candidates with values so diametrically opposed to their own.

Advertisement

Currently, PCI gives generously to Alabama Republicans, but once those conservative lawmakers turn over gambling in the state to the tribe, is it not possible that they will then switch back to their political roots and support Clinton-type Democrats for state offices?

PCI stokes Alabama Republicans for now, but what happens when they no longer need them to do their bidding?

Just last year, PCI contributed to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Money from PCI to the DSCC will go to giving Chuck Schumer control over the U.S. Senate while their support for DCCC will increase Democrats in the House.

“DCCC is the only political committee in the country whose principal mission is to support Democratic House candidates every step of the way,” according to the group’s website.

Do Alabama Republicans not realize that PCI is supporting the very group that elected candidates they claim to despise like AOC and the squad?

In 2018, DCCC’s campaign contributions flipped the U.S. House of Representatives, giving control of the chamber to Nancy Pelosi. In return, Pelosi led House Democrats to impeach President Trump.

Isn’t it hypocritical to loathe Democrats on the one hand while accepting donations from their patrons with the other?

Of PCI’s largest contributions, only two went to Republicans, one was in 2014, to the Congressional Leadership Fund and the other was to John Boehner for Speaker in 2015.

State Republicans howl against Anti-Trump and Pro Socialist Democrats but line-up to support PCI which has given maximum donations to Nancy Pelosi.

Perhaps PCI gave Trump chump change because, as a businessman casino owner, he dared point out the unfair advantages tribal gaming has over private operators. But maybe they are afraid the Trump administration will enforce the law which says PCI can’t operate any games that are illegal in the state.

Obama didn’t enforce the law and Clinton surely would not have. Maybe Trump will.

PCI, for now, is cozy with state Republicans, but their national support for Democrats should serve as a warning that things can change.

Continue Reading

Bill Britt

Opinion | MLK Day: A time for change

Bill Britt

Published

on

Today, as the nation celebrates MLK Day, Alabama still tacks Robert E. Lee onto its observances. But it’s time to end that practice as a new generation deserves to see a better Alabama.

Alabama Code, Title 1. General Provisions § 1-3-8 enumerates the state’s legal public holidays, which lists the third Monday in January as an observance for Martin Luther King Jr., and also Robert E. Lee.

How long will our state’s leaders cling to the past? Isn’t it time to put away the false equivalency between King and Lee?

Both men were flawed, but while Lee’s reputation has diminished with time, King’s has grown.

Lee may have once represented a proud South, but today he is seen as a symbol of bloody slavery.

Over time, King’s legacy has flourished and now stands as a beacon of hope to millions, not just in the United States, but around the world.

In her 2019 Inaugural Address, Gov. Kay Ivey acknowledged, “Thankfully, the Alabama we live in today – the Alabama we love – has changed with the times and, in most instances, this change has been for the better.

Advertisement

But we would be less than honest with each other if we did not acknowledge that change has not always come easily. Standing here on Dexter Avenue, we are reminded of two different chapters in Alabama history: a time when the Civil War raged and 90 years later when the Civil Rights movement was inspired.

It is important for all of us to acknowledge our past; after all, it was at a pulpit just down the street that Doctor Martin Luther King Junior so powerfully taught us how to confront struggles with honesty, courage, and love.

Having learned from the past, let’s now turn our focus to the future, which is filled with so much hope and opportunity.”

Advertisement
Advertisement

Sadly, some in our state can’t admit Alabama’s  past, much less let go of the legacies that still haunt the state.

That Lee shares the day with King is a relic from our not so honorable history.

Almost immediately after King’s assassination in 1968, there were calls for a holiday commemorating his January 15 birthday, a struggle that would be fraught with conflict for 15 years.

President Ronald Reagan signed the bill making MLK Day a national holiday on November 2, 1983, but even he wasn’t convinced that it was best for the nation as he said a King holiday was “based on an image, not reality,” according to a letter he wrote to former Gov. Meldrim Thomson Jr. of New Hampshire.

After Reagan’s remarks were made public, he called King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, to apologize for any misunderstanding about his comment, according to a 1983 report by the New York Times.

Up until the passage of MLK Day legislation, North Carolina U.S. Senator Jesse Helms railed against the measure, accusing King of being a Communist sympathizer. Helms threatened to filibuster, tried to open King’s sealed FBI files and estimated that the cost of a new national holiday would be $12 billion in lost productivity.

Still, today, even in the halls of the Alabama State House, Helms’ argument is still being made.

Efforts to erect a monument to King on Dexter avenue are fought with the same rhetoric and passion that fueled Helms, except today, they are mostly in whispers-tones and code-speaks.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and a host of the founding generation’s notables were slave owners and men with questionable private lives. Still, nevertheless, they are celebrated for their accomplishments, not chased for their failings.

Turbulent water running under the bridge that divides our nation along racial lines is stirred by those who would convince us that they are deep, but they are not deep only muddy making us fear to cross.

King’s legacy is the embodiment of nonviolent activism for civil rights, which has been replicated on nearly every continent around the globe.

After the King Holiday Bill was signed, Coretta Scott King said, “This is not a black holiday; it is a people’s holiday.”

It is time to change because MLK Day cannot be a people’s holiday in Alabama, as long as it’s a Lee holiday, too.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Authors

Advertisement

The V Podcast

Facebook

Trending

.