Jackson Free Press

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood berated House Republicans Wednesday for voting down a bill that would have allowed him to ask a judge for permission to wiretap phones for white-collar crimes. "It's nothing less than a partisan attack. This vote was too solidly along party lines to be anything else," Hood said at a Wednesday press conference.

Current state law only allows the AG's office to seek a wiretap warrant in cases involving drug crimes, but Hood said HB 1148 would have given his office the resources to also pursue cases of jury tampering, political corruption or judicial bribery—a clear reference to an ongoing case against Oxford attorney Richard Scruggs, who is accused of bribing a judge for a favorable opinion in a suit against him.

"Mississippi is one of the few states in the nation where we don't have that authority," Hood told reporters at a Monday press conference. "What have they got to hide? Why is it OK to wiretap a dope dealer, but not a white-collar criminal?"

Republicans killed the bill in the Judiciary A Committee with a 9-to-5 vote, against a Democrat minority. Democrat Margaret Rogers, D-New Albany, was the only Democrat who voted in accord with Republicans.

Rep. Gary Chism, R-Columbus, said on conservative talk radio the next day that Democrats outnumbered Republicans on that committee, and that Democrats had an easy chance to pass it had they made it a priority and attended.

"There were more Democrats than Republicans in that committee, and (Hood) still couldn't get it passed," Chism said.

Chism did not mention on talk radio, however, that several other meetings were going on at the same time, and that Republicans appeared to have organized a concerted effort to storm the Judiciary A Committee in an effort to kill the bill.

Rep. Bobby Moak, D-Bogue Chitto, said the tactic is a common practice in the House.

"Sending your people to a targeted committee is one of the best ways to work defense in some committee work. You build a tactical majority and push your influence in that particular committee. It happens all the time," said. Moak, who had supported the measure. "It was a deadline day, and we had a Ways and Means Committee meeting and a Public Health Committee meeting. There was an opening to take advantage of."

Moak added that Democrats had not mounted a defense effort to protect the bill because they had anticipated strong Republican support for the anti-crime bill, especially in light of Republican fury over Scruggs' bribery investigation. Conservative radio and blogs are making every effort to link Hood to Scruggs, declaring that he is clearly guilty of a myriad of crimes, although court transcriptions and prosecutors in the Scruggs case, so far, have made no direct connections to Hood. They have implicated Sen. Trent Lott, a Republican, for allegedly helping his brother-in-law Scruggs try to win influence over Hinds County Judge Bobby Delaughter—a fact that is getting much less play from conservative pundits.

Hood told reporters on Wednesday that he would not pursue the case against Scruggs; the U.S. Attorney's office is already pursuing the matter. Hood said his office would offer aid to U.S. attorneys if they requested it, however. Conservatives have lambasted Hood for not filing a joint prosecution against Scruggs. Hood had earlier told reporters that his connection to the defendants (Scruggs donated money to Hood during his campaigns) could also prove problematic should he prosecute Scruggs.

"We didn't expect them to make this kind of stand against the bill because that bill addressed all the shouting Republicans have been doing over Hood not chasing these recent judicial scandals. We had an opportunity to help the AG pursue these kinds of cases and they didn't come on board. We don't understand that," Rep. John Mayo, D-Clarksdale, said.

Republican Greg Snowden, of Meridian, said the bill would have given too much power to Hood.

"Hood shouldn't have that kind of power if other forms of law enforcement don't have it. DAs don't have that kind of power, either," Snowden said, adding that he would still have opposed the bill if it had granted wiretapping power to district attorneys.

Consistency isn't Snowden's strong point when it comes to wiretapping, however. Snowden said he approved of President Bush's efforts to wiretap citizens, even though Bush's version, unlike Hood's, does not require a judge's approval.

"The war on terrorism is one thing, but we're talking about local law enforcement here. It's a different matter," Snowden said. "This is a civil liberties issue."

Previous Comments

ID

98797

Comment

“Mississippi is one of the few states in the nation where we don't have that authority,” Hood told reporters at a Monday press conference. “What have they got to hide? Why is it OK to wiretap a dope dealer, but not a white-collar criminal?” Sounds like a double standard to me. Consistency isn’t Snowden’s strong point when it comes to wiretapping, however. Snowden said he approved of President Bush’s efforts to wiretap citizens, even though Bush’s version, unlike Hood’s, does not require a judge’s approval. “The war on terrorism is one thing, but we’re talking about local law enforcement here. It’s a different matter,” Snowden said. “This is a civil liberties issue.” Shouldn't civil liberties be taken into consideration at all levels of government?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-02-21T16:43:50-06:00

ID

98798

Comment

I'm still unclear on the Lott-Scruggs connections. If the conservatives aren't talking about it, then the media certainly hasn't made it clear he did anything other than talk to DeLaughter. Where's the Fire? I don't care if he's guilty, I just need to see something other than the word of a paper which can't get it's facts right most of the time.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-02-22T12:35:20-06:00