Good analysis Alan..Yes, I saw the hood last night and his answers were pathetic.  It’s time for a public outcry for the hood to resign. He is a disgrace to his office and the Democrat party.

He appears very nervous to me.

"When asked if his office should have pursued criminals charges against those caught up in the judicial bribery scandal Hood responded, “If I went after one or more of those individuals it would create an appearance of impropriety. That I do not do.”

It’s not “I” it’s the State of Mississippi’s and not “I” Jimbo. You were elected to represent the people: NOT your “office.” It’s not YOUR office, it’s the Office of the Attorney General and not the Office of Jim Hood, you are just occupying the chair. You have already created an “appearance of impropriety” by your inaction(s) with this issue. That’s the problem, you need to re-read the sections of the law that serve as the basis for your oath of office.

Article 3, Section 5. Government originating in the people.

SOURCES: 1817 art VI § 1; 1832 art VII § 1; 1869 art XII § 26.

Nowhere do I read the EXEMPTION claimed: “creates an appearance of impropriety.” If you really want to dispel this disgusting appearance, either clean up, pass it over to someone that has the necessary resources to do YOUR job or go just go on back home.

Men of honor and integrity will do what is necessary to make things RIGHT, not mealy-mouth, two-step around, double talk and pick nits....they step up to the plate and walk and act like men of honor and integrity. </b>

It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary. Winston Churchill

But of course, that may be asking too much, too late....

I think some of them folo-types need to revisit the definition of the word reciprocity:

Generally, relationship between persons, corporations, states, or countries whereby privileges granted by one are returned by the other.

I would hope that they don’t need to revisit the definition of courtesy.

Right is right, wrong is wrong, and all my shady deals are legitimate.
Obviously Jim’s aren’t!

We are shocked when our politicians do exactly what we elect them to do.  When they campaign, they honestly run on the premise that they will do certain things for us if we elect them, that is telling us that they will accept bribes, which every single one of them does, regardless of party or political bent.

Point in case, universal healthcare or affordable housing on a National scale.  Hood is no different, he is simply protecting the people that bribed him the most, which is the platform that he campaigned on.  He is a criminal and a thief just like the others.

Don’t elect them unless they promise to do away with legislation that weakens our state Consitution, that is the solution.  Oh, and they have to swear on a stack of Bibles to abolish all State pay raises and begin to reduce that salary thingy.

It may be time for the Mississippi State Bar Association to take a stand in regard to Hood.  What option(s) are available under the law to remove him from office.

The Bar remove one of its own?  Funny.

Yeah, that’s kinda like asking the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the State of Mississippi to prosecute his contributors.  Ain’t gonna happen.

Hey Two Dogs:  Anybody can justify anything.  Are you Jim Hood???

The Mississippi Bar could reprimand or disbar Jim Hood.  However, it cannot remove him from office.  That is another can of worms outside of their authority.

Not at all, and I do not support him in the least, I do believe that I made clear that he is a criminal.  I am just saying there is no reason to act all surprised when the politicians do exactly what we ask them to do.  And I voiced that.  We vote for candidates that have ideas that are contrary to our best interests.  I blogged about my philosophy on this on my blog just this morning.

Here’s my ignorance on the legalese of this situation, has the Mississippi Bar actually released an official opinion on this situation, even regarding the men that have pled guilty?  I do realize that those men forfeit their right to practice law with their guilty pleas, but has the Bar said anything about them at all?

The Bar released this statement:
http://www.msbar.org/admin/spotimages/1554.pdf

Sects. 49-53 of the Miss. Constitution deal with impeachment. The odds of 2/3 of the members of the House of Representatives bringing articles of impeachment against Hood are slim to none.  Hood would have to commit treason, bribery, or any high crime or misdemeanor in office.  He would be tried by the Senate and 2/3 of the members would have to vote for removal. 

I am only reading the Constitution; there may be some case law out there on this.  Please, somebody else research this issue and give an opinion.  I’m no expert on this subject.

If Jim Hood lethally stabbed Billy McCoy 1000 times on the floor of the House with a dull #2 pencil, I don’t think they could get a 2/3 vote in the House to remove Mississippi’s only statewide elected Democrat.  That is a political dead end.

Thanks, elibaby42, that does appear to be a cogent release.  I did not see that in the Clarion-Ledger, but I do not read every page, and I refuse to read at length their website, have you ever seen a more jumbled website?  Coupled with the fact that I just found Y’all Politics, I am kinda behind the curve on my information on the corruption in our great state.

Alas, I have no faith at all in our elected officials to do the right thing.  That is simply because of their past behavior.

I think that Alan might share my sentiments.  I laughed and am still laughing.

As am I!!!

Alan:  So Shakespearian! (sp?)

Maybe Hood should have used the Dubyah defense and denied knowing Scruggs and Langston like Mr. Bush denied knowing Kenny Boy when his biggest contributor Enron imploded.

..the Republicans gave the Enron contributions back didnt they?

So, we have dissolved into the Bush and corporations are evil argument?  Let’s go back to where Enron and Halliburton got there start then, with the Brown family that backed to the hilt Lyndon Johnson’s rise to power in the late Fifties, you can’t have it both ways.  What does that have to do with Jim Hood being an idiotic crook?  Same thing that Bush and Enron do.  It is not about party in my mind.  It is about principal.

Did Hillary and Bill Clinton give back the money that John Huang and the Chinese government gave them for nuclear secrets?  The thousands from the busboys in Chinatown?  Did Hillary Clinton give back her ill-gotten gains on cattle futures?  Please don’t start this one, you have no chance in this debate, even if no one else on the Left is brought in but the Clintons.  The scales are not even close to balanced with National politics.

Also, did Hill and Bill give back the Dough given to them By Kenny Boy and least we forget, it was non other than Ken Lay who occupied the Lincoln Bedroom no less that 11 times with the Clintons.

If Republicans accepted money from Ken Lay “prior to” the Enron implosion they shouldnt have to return the money, nor should Hood have to return funds contributed by these lawyers donated prior to the present scandals.. I dont think Hood would accept donations from Scruggs and Langston today, nor would Dubyah accept money from Kenny Boy, God rest his soul. Dont worry, the Mississippi Dems wont have any money going forward with little or no union presence in the state and without trial lawyer money. Without any elected Dems to attack Republicans can then spew venom at each other. It will be painful to endure but fun to spectate.

By the Way, MBAlaw.............under which Democrat Administration was Halliburton awarded no bid contracts and why?

Told you not to open this can of worms.  Did everyone read Alan’s comment back at 2:08 pm and laugh like I did?

All this buying legislation bidness began in Texas with LBJ.

It probably began back in a cave with Grag and Thog.

Matters not when and who started it.  What matters is today and Jim Hood. In this thread there is the typical response from a Dem that is greatly against the republicans that do it, but when one of his own gets caught, the response is “they did it before”.  Hypocrite!

After reading Jimmy the Hair’s bumbling testimony down in Natchez I have a hard time believing that he possesses the skills to have written any of this guest column:

So the pundits will continue speculating. The bloggers will keep on blogging. And my critics will yell and squeal the loudest. They offer no solutions, of course, only empty words. But as for this office, the business of protecting Mississippi’s families will continue over the din of those who would do them harm.

But Jimmy, you BAGGED on your criminal prosecution of State Farm.  So who is protecting the people on the coast?  It sure as f’ing ain’t you.

quote:
“They offer no solutions, of course, only empty words.”

I like that part............only empty words. Really sounds like a guy ‘running on empty’ to me. And, soon............solutions will be offered. Likely impeachment.

Someone on folo linked to this Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal story on Hood’s having previously used the threat of criminal prosecution in a lawsuit he had against Progressive.

http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=266455&pub=1&div=News

I think Jim Hood looks good orange.

I think Jim Hood looks good in orange.

I don’t know about that, but ethically it certainly has some appearance that lines were crossed.  As the state’s top law enforcement officer, that standard has to be held high.

we will find out if there is a ‘get out of jail free card’ after the scruggs case is decided.there is no such thing as ethics in mississippi politics,so i will not be surprised at the outcome.just like the beef plant.there are several people who were unethical in that situation and got re-elected.