More on Hood interview on MPB

Is it just about over, the Jim Hood Self-Destruction Tour? I mean, we are all on his back to talk when he fell silent in the wake of the Scruggs indictment, but now it looks like Quiet Jim knew better than Chatty Jim.  This new strategy of talking to the media? Not working.  When is one of Hood’s people going to put an arm on his shoulder, take him aside and say, "Jimbo, we’re going need you to make some changes here.  What we’re picturing is kind of an immediate transition from this jabber-jaws thing where you keep on stepping in it out in public and hurting yourself and us, and going more to a kind of a deal where you go back to hiding in your office with the phone turned off and the curtains shut. "   

I listened to the MPB interview again a couple of times. Let’s take a closer look at some of Hood’s statements.  

"There was a problem with the element of proof, and there was no need to try and indict State Farm." 

A problem with the element of proof?  What was the problem with the proof, there wasn’t any?  Then Hood had no reason to begin his second grand jury investigation in July 2007, after he had signed the non-prosecution agreement (the violation of which, as you remember, resulted in the embarrassing debacle of the State Farm lawsuit and injunction against him, and a defeat so crushing it apparently goaded him to cease his silence and go on the comedy club circuit).

"State Farm was the snake in all this."

What is this, Aesop’s Fables?  If State Farm was the snake, what was Hood, Deputy Dawg?

"If my good friend Mike Moore, who I’ve known for years, was unable to influence me to sign off on this federal class action, then nobody else was  . . . ."

How did Moore try to influence him, and why did Moore care?

That decision not to prosecute them was made, as it should be, without any influence, without any regard to any civil cases . . . .  

I made their [State Farm’s] chief lawyer out of Bloomington meet me in Memphis is when we negotiated it . . . so for two, three weeks, maybe even a month in that time period, I wasn’t talking to any of them[Scruggs and his people]."

Wait a minute, the first quote says Hood didn’t make the decision to settle the criminal prosecution until he heard from his investigator at the grand jury  that there were no grounds for indictments.  So why was he involved in negotiations with State Farm before that time?

This interview was incredibly lame, a lot of unasked questions.  Like a simple one.  If what Hood says is true, why was he so upset when the federal class action didn’t go through? This, as you remember, has been cited by Hood again and again as a breach of the agreement with him that justified Hood’s own breach of the non-prosecution agreement.  If dropping the criminal prosecution was not an exchange for what Scruggs wanted — the settlement of 640 Katrina cases and the certification and immediate settlement of a class action — then why did Hood care when the class action didn’t happen after Judge Senter shot it down? 

I am a former professional journalist, and I’m a very good interviewer.  AG Hood, I issued this invitation once before and I’ll say it again, let’s do a comprehensive interview, I’ll have it recorded and put on this blog word for word.  Just give me a call to arrange it.

One final thing: did you notice he went the whole interview without mentioning once that Courtney Schloemer told him to do something? Also, have you noticed that Hood has had very little to nothing to say about the confidential settlement in the State Farm v. Hood case lately?  For a while, all Hood could do is talk about how he supposedly got the case thrown out and the allegations declared false — contrary to all reason and evidence — until that Sheila Birnbaum accidental e-mail that talked of trying to tag him with contempt of court.  Since then, seems like he’s recovered his balance on that subject. 

UPDATE: I thought this was a very good post on Y’all Politics on Hood.   Kind of walks you through Hood’s non-stop self-pummelling.  In other news, I hear Hood’s media escapades have led to a new unofficial policy in the Attorney General’s office — every Friday is now Fiasco Friday, where it’s OK to beclown yourself and make a complete shambles of everything you undertake.  A sort of a Fool For A Day policy.

 

    

11 Comments

Filed under Industry Developments

11 Responses to More on Hood interview on MPB

  1. bellesouth

    David, I have been thinking about the second grand jury and the NFIP. Just wondering — not taking sides. I have just recently delved into this forray, so this is just a question and only a question. I am not stating anything as a fact or not. But I was writing down trying to figure it out and came up with this question.
    How did the original insurance claims work vis a vis SF on the coast? Hood says they were zeroing people out and not paying a dime — doing drive bys, refusing to pay someone who lived 180 miles from the coast with shingles off his roof (no wind there, uh uh). That seemed to be the focus of his criminal investigation and then he made them re-evaluate 5000 claims, right? So, was that dealing with the claims that were zeroed out and for those who did not have flood insurance (which is NFIP, correct?)? So, the focus of his second investigation — could it have been because SF wasn’t paying the claims and they were passing those who had flood insurance off to NFIP which was obligated under federal rules and federal taxpayers to pay even though SF should maybe re-evaluate those claims as well? Could this second investigation maybe, conceivably be different because SF isn’t obligated to re-evaluate those claims that weren’t zeroed out but were paid by NFIP?

  2. MORE COWBELL

    The other day I had to step in to coach my daughter’s softball team. I came up with the pre- and post-game cheer, “We paid for this.” The girls liked it and we won 10-9. Kinda catchy, huh?

  3. Main Street

    More Cowbell…You are dangerous, I have never laughted so hard in all my life, and I thought David with the Ernest Scared Stupid had topped the cake. Hey it may never get caught by those in need, but you made my day.

  4. Entertained

    Bellesouth, your creativity is a thing of wonder. You seem hell bent on creating plausible scenarios for Mr. Hood when everything in the real world screams that he is and was incompetent, or worse. I mean, come on. There’s Devil’s Advocacy, and then there’s the Devil’s Mistress. Only someone truly infatuated with Beezlebub would spend the effort you are spending to Liquid Paper over his horns in all the pictures.

  5. bellesouth

    Breaking news: USA v. Scruggs in Alabama is dismissed.
    III. CONCLUSION
    For the above reasons, Scruggs’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 7, is GRANTED,
    and this case is DISMISSED, with prejudice. All other pending motions are DENIED
    as moot.

  6. Oaege

    Cowbell…. may not always agree with but I do appreciate your views (and those of the others who post here) but “WE PAID FOR THIS” is truly an inspired cheer for the 21st century. 🙂 Quick, run down to the copywright/patent office and register it!

  7. Underdog

    Theory: Someone here is our dear Ernest posting under an alias. Peculiar insight into the workings of the AG mind. Divorced from reality. Clinical case of verbal diarrhea. Just a thought.

  8. bellesouth

    I’d say we paid for this if SF is not held accountable to re-evaluating those claims that they passed off to NFIP, like the ones they had previously zeroed out

  9. Belle, three a day is your limit. Three comments. No others get published, so think before you type. Also remember that this is my site and respect my rules if you want to comment here. Of the three comments, none of them can be overt Hood shilling.

  10. Nomiss

    “If my good friend Mike Moore… couldn’t influence me to sign off on this federal class action, then nobody else was….”
    This statement by Jim Hood apparently was Hood’s attempt to prove that he was not and could not be influenced by Patterson and Balducci. However, it screams the fact that Moore had been making efforts to influence him to drop the criminal investigation, and underscores Scruggs’ desire to get the AG to drop the case. If Scruggs and Moore weren’t collaborating, why was Mike Moore trying to influence AG Hood in this case?
    Hood just can’t win. While preaching his own innocence, he implicates his best friend.

  11. snafu

    I may be off base here, but every time I read Bellesouth I can’t help but think of Hester Prynne protecting the honor of her Dimmesdale (Hood) while the puppetmaster Chillingsworth (Scruggs) torments their sanity. I fully expect Hood to emerge some day soon on the Jackson water tower bearing his chest to reveal a scarlet “404(b)” emblazened on his bosom.