Scruggs Nation, February 26: what of the Balducci-Patterson-Hood meeting?

This comes from Exhibit 5 to the Scruggs supplemental brief on the wiretaps, a November 12, 2007 report by FBI of information from Balducci. Do you see what this says? It says that Scruggs paid Balducci and Patterson half a million dollars to get Hood to back off the State Farm grand jury investigation. And it implies Hood backed off because of the meeting with Balducci and Patterson. Why he backed off, this does not say. But remember at the February 6 hearing in State Farm v. Hood where State Farm’s lawyer, Jim Robie, asked Hood about these two threatening him on behalf of Scruggs, that Scruggs would fund a challenger in the Democratic primary if Hood didn’t back down and clear the way for Scruggs to collect his fees? If you don’t, read this post I wrote about the hearing.

Seems to me that whole business needs to be explored some more, don’t you think? If this is true, doesn’t it qualify as some sort of improper influence of a public official? And what about Hood? Is dropping a criminal investigation under such circumstances — again, if this is true — consistent with proper performance of the job of Attorney General? I sure would like to know if this stuff is true, wouldn’t you? Besides the information about Hood, this is a key document to read to understand the alleged plot to bribe Lackey.

Insurance Coverage Blog
2/26/8