There seems to be an effort afoot in the pro-DeLaughter camp to point out the conflicts in testimony between Steve Patterson and Dickie Scruggs on the one hand and Tim Balducci on the other. Of course, Dickie Scruggs and Steve Patterson have been on the same side of the fence trying to tarnish Tim Balducci before. Just days after the Scruggs raid, Scruggs insiders put out the defense theme that Balducci was a “wannabe” and acted alone to bribe Lackey to “get a seat at the big boys table”.

Though Jerry Mitchell reports on the latest on DeLaughter today (with the obligatory quote from Matt Steffey), there is one real significant omission. Remember that Scruggs and Patterson are still defendants in Wilson v. Scruggs 2.0. Their “conflicting testimony” has a bit of an axe to grind, but they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have to be good enough for the feds to be helpful in convicting DeLaughter, but no so helpful that they prove that DeLaughter was actually corrupted. If it’s proven by Wilson that DeLaughter was indeed corrupted, then could will be millions more to pay in damages.

Contrast that to Tim Balducci. Remember his response to Wilson v. Scruggs 2.0? Handwritten. Fully contrite.

So, the question for the YallPolitics Nation is . . . who ya gonna believe?

1. Dickie Scruggs, who has now pleaded guilty twice to bribing judges, and Steve Patterson, who resigned from office for improprieties as State Auditor? The fact that both are defendants in a civil lawsuit that could mean millions more out of their pocket speaks volumes, OR

2. Tim Balducci, the guy who immediately cooperated, never “lawyered up”, cooperated in every way possible, admitted guilt, took exactly what the feds doled out, and immediately was contrite with respect to his involvement in Wilson v. Scruggs 2.0?

In my mind, if it comes down to a credibility fight, there’s not much of a contest here.