Patricia McCarter of the Huntsville Times has written a very fair and thorough representation of the controversy surrounding Parker Griffith’s peer review from the 1980’s.

Griffith had another whopper of a quote at the end of the article.  He said, “This has been out there for two decades…”  Actually, vague rumors and innuendo, which I previously discredited, have been around for two decades.  Substantive, specific reports about Griffith’s practice have only been out there for two days.

As for Griffith’s claim that no patient ever complained (a claim verified by the state) it is a curious response.  Note that he didn’t say that he did not engage in “sub-optimal” care as the survey, authored by a highly regarded doctor in the field, stated.  Griffith merely said that no one complained.  Well, based on the practices that the report describes one would not expect patients to realize they were receiving inadequate treatment and that there were justifiable grounds for a complaint.

I’ve never been affected by cancer personally or through my immediate family I’m fortunate to say.  But I can imagine that learning you have cancer is incredibly challenging to cope with emotionally.  I suspect there is that there is a feeling of very little hope, at least initially.  It is a state of mind that tempers your expectations for the outcome of treatments.  Griffith could have administered partial doses to all of his patients and they would be none the wiser.  In addition to their low expectations (relative to, say, a patient undergoing an appendectomy) they are likely not medical professionals trained in radiation oncology that could recognize the improper treatment.  They are easy prey for an unscrupulous physician.  If the treatments don’t work their first thought won’t be that the doctor intentionally sabotaged them; they will assume that the odds just didn’t work out in their favor.  That is the cruel nature of cancer after all, right?

Another of Griffith’s defenses is that the two men who reviewed his practice were hired guns.  The implication is that they were medical whores who would say anything in return for a check from the hospital.  This alone is a serious claim about two men who are FAR more accomplished in the field than Griffith.  As with expert witnesses in a legal proceeding, the scope of what they assess and the flavor of their findings could be influenced by their client.  However, there are numerous findings in the report that are not opinions or spin - they are direct statements specifying noncompliance with standard practices at the time and shoddy record keeping that hindered their ability to more thoroughly ascertain exactly what went on.  The inadequate record keeping is not a trivial finding because it can be an indication of someone trying to hide their actions.

Griffith wasn’t terribly charitable towards the judge who presided over his failed attempt to block the peer review which led to a vote to revoke his privileges.  He blamed the judge for not being “medically savvy” and not understanding how competition works in the medical field.  Translation: the judge was stupid.  He also said that reports such as the one in question “are ordinarily sealed because the public does not know how to interpret them.”  Translation: you and I are stupid.  If only we were all as smart as the great Dr. Parker Griffith!

BTW, this site provides general reasons for sealing documents:

The ”’public policy”’ of record sealing balances the state’s desire to free citizens from the burdens caused by the information contained in state records against the state’s interest to preserve records that may be beneficial to the state or its citizens.

Nothing about protecting citizens from their own ignorance.

Griffith offered up a technically correct statement about the conduct of the peer review that has left some of his supporters confused.  In an attempt to trivialize the findings he told Greg Privett of WHNT “I never met with Dr. Perez.” At least one of his supporters ran with that and proclaimed that he was never interviewed.  The fact is, though, that Griffith was interviewed by Dr. Luther Brady as part of a survey of the oncology practice, which is probably the more scathing of the two reports.  Dr. Perez’s peer review was more of an audit.  It involved him looking though records and making assessments based on what he could find.  Here’s where the shoddy record keeping comes back into play.

There remains the very serious questions of why Huntsville Hospital merely voted to revoke his privilege and not pursue the matter further.  Griffith would have you believe that it was a competition issue.  Clearly that isn’t the case based on the findings in the two reports.  I can’t say (nor do I allege), but I can imagine that they had significant incentive to keep this quiet.  While such information would clearly be damaging to Dr. Griffith (and any other doctors involved), which would satisfy the objective Griffith claims they had, it would also open the hospital up to a barrage of civil lawsuits.

Could this information open up Griffith (and others) to civil proceedings now?  I imagine that patients and relatives of patients will be hot for answers in light of this newly released evidence.  While it appears that the statute of limitations were long ago exceeded there is something called the Discovery Rule:

Sometimes it is not reasonably possible for a person to discover the cause of an injury, or even to know that an injury has occurred, until considerably after the act which causes the injury. For example, an error in the drafting of a will might not be noticed until the will is being executed, decades after it was drafted, or a financial planner’s embezzlement might not be noticed for years due to the issuance of false statements of account.

When it applies, the “discovery rule” permits a suit to be filed within a certain period of time after the injury is discovered, or reasonably should have been discovered. The discovery rule does not apply to all civil injuries, and sometimes the period of time for bringing a claim post-discovery can be short, so it is important to seek legal assistance quickly in the event of the late discovery of an injury.

Maybe a helpful lawyer can chime in and explain whether this (or some other rule) applies here.  Even if it doesn’t, can we expect to see a group of patients and their families coalesce prior to the election and demand that Griffith address their concerns?

More to come I’m sure.

Here’s the payoff to last night’s teaser post about Parker Griffith and his history with Huntsville Hospital…

Here is the document detailing serious accusations of questionable treatment of patients at Huntsville Hospital during Dr. Parker Griffith’s time there.  You really have to read the document in it’s entirety to realize just how damning it really is.

Here are just a few quotes that give you the flavor of the findings:

• “…there have been numerous irregularities existing in he treatment of patients in the radiation oncology program for some time.”
• patients “have had sub-therapeutic and prolonged radiation therapy programs which have led to unwarranted pain and suffering.”
• patients “have had sub-optimal radiation therapy leading to sub-optimal potentials for cure rates.”
• “…inadequate medical supervision…”
• “These various concerns [were] supported by numerous letters and documentation.”
• “…in those patients managed by [Dr. Griffith] there was a definite emphasis toward limited volumes inappropriate to the disease being treated, fractionation schedules which are much lower than our standard in most departments in the United States, and total doses that were inadequate…”
• “…more aggressive programs of management would have resulted in cure.”
• “…the best one can say is that it was treatment designed to insure recurrence of the patient’s disease process which indeed occurred…”
• “…large numbers of patients in hospital on which there was poor record keeping and documentation…”
• “…the records…were poorly managed and poorly maintained.”
• “The rationale for the dose/time schedules used is not stated in any of the records and I personally don’t understand the reasons behind it.”

One of the themes that the reader is led to believe, although is not stated directly, is that Griffith may have intentionally prolonged treatment programs, which would result in additional billing.  Also, the allegations in the report do not reflect isolated cases, they indicate a systemic pattern of irregular treatment.

The report also includes a summary of treatments and details on what percentage were adequate.  It isn’t pretty.

Reactionary had a nice post about the credentials of the report’s authors.

The document raises as many questions as it answers.  If the findings in the report are accurate and verifiable then why did Huntsville Hospital stop at voting to revoke his privileges?  It seems like all of that “sub-optimal” treatment should have been reported to a board of licensure at a minimum.  Why was Dr. Griffith so foolish as to proudly and unequivocally dismiss Wayne Parker’s vague allegations of possible misconduct at Huntsville Hospital?  He was certainly smug as he told WHNT’s Greg Privett that the issue was simply one of Huntsville Hospital viewing him as a competitor.  How will Griffith respond to this new information?

The answer to the question about Griffith’s foolish pride may lie in Griffith’s history as a politician.  Since 2004 he has made it through two high profile campaigns without this information coming out (Huntsville mayoral race in 2004 and AL state senate in 2006).  I know that in 2004 there were whispers about misconduct, but nothing like this came out.  I don’t recall any mention of his history as a doctor in 2006, although I don’t live in his district and didn’t follow that race terribly closely.  Maybe he assumed he could make it through another campaign by not telling the truth.

It is interesting to note one of Griffith’s significant business interests: he owns (I believe) 13 funeral homes.  While I certainly don’t think or mean to suggest that he intentionally gave patients sub-standard coverage or that he even owned the funeral homes during this time period (I don’t know), it does present a curious conflict of interests.  It sounds a lot like vertical integration.

And kudos to Wayne Parker’s campaign.  They just schooled us all in how to play rope a dope.  They put out a vague, provocative ad and Griffith took the bait hook, line, and sinker.  There were questions as to whether they really knew something or were just making waves.  It now appears that they did know something - something quite damning.  They let Griffith play out the line and now the hook has been set.

The ball is now in Dr. Griffith’s court.  I anticipate seeing advertisements hammering Griffith on this point - and rightly so.  The new information goes directly to the issue of trust on a number of levels.  The main stream media will pick up on this soon.  Griffith will be forced to respond and after being caught lying to the media once on this issue I don’t suspect they will be so willing to simply accept his claims.

Other links (so far) on the story:

• Parker Griffith’s honesty problem
• Parker Griffith information surfaces
• Parker Griffith’s Lies

Dr. Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report has done yeoman’s work fighting the Jihad over the Internet (he is credited with interfering with Al Qaeda’s latest video).  In this post he sights a different target - the people and groups that spread smears about Sarah Palin -  Hope, Change, & Lies: Orchestrated “Grassroots” Smear Campaigns & the People that Run Them:

Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure.

It is also likely that the PR firm was paid by outside sources to run the smear campaign. While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign. Namely:

• Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.

• The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.

• Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.

• Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.

• The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.

• This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrod’s firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as “astroturfing.”

• David Axelrod is Barack Obama’s chief media strategist.

The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.

Read the whole thing, it is very detailed and he names names…

UPDATE:  Astroturf is a fake grass roots movement.  The term is applied when a Public Relations firm creates a fake grassroots group on behalf of a secretive client to professionally manipulate public opinion. According to Business Week, Obama Chief Strategist David Axelrod’s firm ASK is known as “the gold standard in Astroturf organizing. This is an emerging industry, and ASK has made a name for itself in shaping public opinion and manufacturing public support.”  Business Week describes a successful Astroturf campaign:

ASK’s relationship with ComEd goes back much further: The Chicago-based utility says ASK has been an adviser since at least 2002. ASK’s workload picked up in 2005, as the Exelon subsidiary was nearing the end of a 10-year rate freeze and preparing to ask state regulators for higher electricity prices. Based on ASK’s advice, ComEd formed Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity (CORE) to win support.

One TV commercial, penned by ASK, warned of a ComEd bankruptcy and blackouts without a rate hike: “A few years ago, California politicians seized control of electric rates. They held rates down, but the true cost of energy kept rising. Soon the electric company went bust; the lights went out. Consumers had to pay for the mess. Now, some people in Illinois are playing the same game.” CORE, which describes itself on its Web site as “a coalition of individuals, businesses and organizations,” was identified as the ad’s sponsor. After a complaint was filed with state regulators, ComEd acknowledged that it had bankrolled the entire $15 million effort.

Another example of a successful Astroturf campaign is the Orwellian ‘Hillary 1984′ viral video. Hillary ad traced to staffer of firm hired by Obama:

…the creator of the “Big Sister” YouTube ad attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Democratic staffer who worked for an Internet firm on contract with rival Barack Obama’s campaign…

De Vellis was employed, until Wednesday, when he was unmasked, by Blue State Digital, the Washington, D.C., firm whose founders include Joe Rospars. Rospars is the Obama campaign’s new media director and oversees the extensive Obama Web operation.

President Bill Clinton’s comment about “typical Chicago thug” politics was a complaint and a warning. This campaign will get ugly before it’s over and WE NEED TO STAND UP!

From the AP:

A new set of potential problems in Rep. Charles Rangel’s financial papers has prompted the tax-writing lawmaker to hire a forensic accounting expert to try to unravel the mess.

Rangel, chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, is already the subject of ethics committee investigations on several fronts, including unreported income and unpaid taxes on his beach house in the Dominican Republic.

…

Among the new discrepancies:

• Rangel’s papers over the past 10 years show no reference to the sale of a home he once owned on Colorado Avenue in Washington.
• The details of a property bought in Sunny Isles, Fla., are bewildering at best. The stated value changes significantly from year to year, and even page to page, from $50,000 to $100,000 all the way up to $500,000.
• Some of the entries for investment funds fluctuate strangely, suggesting that the person either didn’t have accurate information or didn’t fill out the paperwork correctly.

The NY Times is calling on Rangel to step aside as chair of the Ways and Means Committee while he is being investigated.  Their plea isn’t as noble as it might seem at first blush.  The phrasing they use suggests they want to see Rangel step aside so that their preferred party isn’t tainted by his possible ethical lapses:

His temporary yielding of the gavel is an urgent necessity for a Democratic Congress elected two years ago on promises of an ethical housecleaning.

To be fair, the paper has worked hard to help out the Democrats.  It would be a pity to see Rangel spoil their investment.

The way I see it there are three conclusions one could draw from this situation (two and three go hand in hand):

1. Rangel is a criminal who intentionally sought to avoid paying taxes he legally owed.  I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this is not the case.
2. He is so hopelessly ignorant of his own personal and business finances that it is hard to believe he has the aptitude to be the chief tax author in our Congress.
3. This is a sign that the tax code is too complex.  This is what both I and the Wall Street Journal believe (although I’m not discounting #2).  If the most senior member of Congress in charge of taxation gets confused - habitually confused it appears - then how can you and I be expected to comply with the onerous federal tax code?

Maybe Rangel should consider the FairTax in order to simply federal taxes.  I would hate to see him get ensnared in any more tax avoidance scandals.

I would be remiss in failing to remind north Alabama voters about Rangel’s ties to the Tennessee Valley.  Parker Griffith, the Democrat’s candidate for Congress, has taken thousands of dollars from Rangel.

From AL.com:

Defense attorneys have asked a federal judge to prohibit prosecutors from saying the phrase “double dipping” during the fraud trial of state Rep. Sue Schmitz.

How about just calling her a crook?

One line of thinking might be that if you don’t want to be called a thief then don’t steal things.  If you don’t want to be called a double dipper then… well, you get the point.

“It’s completely untrue, ridiculous.”  That is what John Edwards previously said about rumors that he cheated on his wife with a former campaign worker.  Now he has admitted to the affair.

I started to cull through some of Edwards’ quotes about his wife and his faithfulness to her - pretty amusing stuff.  It takes a very shallow person to cheat on his wife while she was battling cancer, but that is just what John Edwards is.  He is a slick trial lawyer who knows how to spin a good yarn, paint a compelling picture for juries.  He fights poverty from his ginormous mansion.  As the title of this column suggests: He was always a fake.

Supposedly the affair occurred back in 2006 and John had told his wife about it, which brings up an uncomfortable point made by someone on, of all places, the Huffington Post:

[B]oth John and Elizabeth Edwards cynically used their marriage as a means to help John Edwards win an election.

Plus, how stupid are they?  They HAD to have known that the intense spotlight of a presidential campaign would have exposed the affair.  If they had just decided to quietly fade from the public spotlight instead of run for President - again - then they might have been able to avoid this unpleasant attention.

Maybe there really are two Americas after all.  One in which rich politicians cheat on their sick wives while using them as a campaign prop and the other one with the rest of us.

I eagerly await the hostile condemnation from leftists that I would expect were Edwards a Republican.

Related bonus material:

Former President Bill Clinton is gallivanting around the world lecturing people to practice monogamy.

If you haven’t heard someone on the left side of the of the political spectrum complain about the corrupt, politicized Bush Justice Department then, please, tell me about the ride on the turnip truck.  Here in Alabama the popular refrain among leftists is that the Bush Justice Department chose to aggressively prosecute Don Siegelman (and rig the judicial system) - all orchestrated by Karl Rove, of course.  They never explain why Alabama of all states was chosen for this extreme subversion of the law.  Could be that we had a corrupt former governor…

Anyway, I was reading an article in USA Today about Ted Steven’s indictment on seven federal charges of failing to disclose gifts.  There was a table accompanying the article listing members of Congress who have been indicted or convicted wince 2000 (six Republicans, two Democrats).  Four of the Republicans (and both Democrats) were indicted and/or prosecuted by the federal government - the corrupt, politicized Bush Justice Department.  How can this be?! I thought that they only targeted Democrats.  (I’m not the only one to take note of the paradox.)

As far as Stevens goes, I am not surprised to learn about the indictment, in fact I am glad to hear about it.  Regular readers know that I have a particularly sharp disdain for legislative pork and Stevens was the worst (or the best, depending on your point of view).

From AL.com:

State Sen. E.B. McClain has been named in a 50-count indictment by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiracy, mail fraud money laundering and bribery involving a program receiving federal money.

U.S. Attorney Alice Martin during a press conference today said McClain used his public office for “personal profit.”

“He worked the ‘pass through grant process not to help his community and those in need of GED training, but to line his pockets with over $300,000,” Martin said.

50 counts!  Dang.  The state of Alabama is already after him for allegedly using grants to line his on pockets.

Did House Democrats kill the Colombian Free Trade Agreement to help Marxist FARC terrorists?

It looks like some of them might have…

The Economist, in The FARC Files: Just how much help has Hugo Chavez given to Colombia’s terrorists?, reports that “Interpol has now concluded that the huge cache of e-mails and other documents recovered from the computers of Raúl Reyes, a senior leader of the FARC guerrillas killed in a Colombian bombing raid on his camp in Ecuador on March 1st, are authentic and undoctored.”

Batches of the documents have been seen by The Economist and several other publications. They appear to show that Mr Chávez offered the FARC up to $300m, and talked of allocating the guerrillas an oil ration which they could sell for profit. They also suggest that Venezuelan army officers helped the FARC to obtain small arms, such as rocket-propelled grenades, and to set up meetings with arms dealers.

The Wall Street Journal wrote about the links between FARC, House Democrats, and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement in A FARC Fan’s Notes:

A military strike three weeks ago killed Raúl Reyes, No. 2 in command of the FARC, Colombia’s most notorious terrorist group. The Reyes hard drive reveals an ardent effort to do business directly with the FARC by Congressman James McGovern (D., Mass.), a leading opponent of the free-trade deal. Mr. McGovern has been working with an American go-between, who has been offering the rebels help in undermining Colombia’s elected and popular government.

House Democrats killed the Colombian Free Trade Agreement in April.  The American published a good overview of the FTA process in The Fast-Track Trade War:

By a vote of 224 to 195, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership pushed through an amendment that eliminated rules requiring Congress to approve or reject the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement…

President Bush charged that “the message the Democrats sent today is that no matter now steadfastly you stand with us, we will turn our backs on you when it is politically convenient.”

Suffice it to say that there is little disagreement on the economic payoff: it is largely a one-way street. Since 1991, most of Colombia’s exports have entered the United States duty-free under the Andean Trade Preference Act. The FTA would provide reciprocal duty-free access for almost 90 percent of U.S. exports to Colombia within five years, and it would ensure total free trade within ten years. (NOTE - this means good for the US)

The special congressional rules for ratification of trade agreements were established in 1974…  Under the “fast-track” legislation, after a trade agreement is sent to Congress the House must vote on it within 60 legislative days, without amendment; then the Senate has 30 days to complete action, which means the whole process must occur within a 90-day window.

FARC’s friend Rep. McGovern was instrumental in killing the Colombian Free Trade Agreement: 

Rules Committee chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) had discussed the option of stripping time requirements from the fast-track process since January. When the administration signaled that it would forward the agreement even without a sign-off by congressional Democratic leaders, Slaughter and McGovern seized the opportunity. On Tuesday, April 8, the president formally sent up the agreement and supporting documents; that same evening, Slaughter and McGovern presented the deadline-stripping plan to Speaker Pelosi, who, after meeting with other members of her leadership team, the next day backed the changes in a larger Democratic caucus. And on Thursday, as noted above, the House Democratic majority rammed through the amendments to House rules, effectively gutting the fast-track process for the Colombia FTA. 

More:

…there seems to have been no serious discussion of the far-reaching implications of overturning three decades of U.S. trade policy.

…powerful U.S. foreign policy and security arguments fell on deaf congressional ears. There could be no starker example of a beleaguered U.S. ally, flanked by regimes (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia) increasingly hostile to U.S. interests, than Colombia.

…the speaker of the Colombian House of Representatives described the U.S. House action as “colonial treatment.” 

I attended Scott Horton’s speech at UAH last night, partly to provide content for my first guest post here at Flashpoint, partly to see the new Shelby Center, partly to see “The Don”, and partly for the spectacle.

I parked by a car with a Kucinich sticker then walked into the building with a few older men and women. The Shelby Center was nice, with a courtyard garden, ample seating in the lobby, student meeting rooms, and nice bathrooms.

The lecture hall was almost full, with about 184 people in the room when Horton started his presentation. More than half the crowd was older people, some of whom prided themselves as being “activists” and “agitators”. Saw one ‘Hillary’ button and some ‘Free Don’ buttons. About a dozen AAMU students were there, presumably from the Political Science Department (cosponsor of the event). About a dozen reporters, camera crew, &c covered the event.

Governor Siegelman received a standing ovation when he entered the room. Former Secretary of State Nancy Worley and Madison County Democratic Party Chairman Doug Dermody were the only officials I recognized. “Whistleblower” Dana Jill Simpson was there. Glynn Wilson of ‘Locust Fork’ and the couple from ‘Left in Alabama’ (wearing their blog t-shirts) attended. John Ehinger and Patricia McCarter of the Huntsville Times and Eddie Curran of the Mobile Press Register attended (Curran attended representing himself).

Linda Haynes of North Alabama Media Reform hosted the event. She railed against media companies that were only concerned with “profits and pleasing investors” (which is of course, the point of business). She seems to prefer Government controlled / regulated media.

Scott Horton, who looks like Michael Moore’s younger, cleaner, brother, began his hour-long speech with a story about Thomas Minott Peters, a Reconstruction-era Republican Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Horton spoke about how the local newspapers and Democratic Party “Bourbons” of the time vilified Peters, but how the national press, including Harper’s, got the story right. He then spoke about how during the Civil Rights era, the local press was wrong and the national press was right. Then he set up the comparison to the Siegelman story.

Horton claims that Democrats are prosecuted on a 5.8 to 1 ratio compared to Republicans, alleging “selective direction” of prosecution by the Bush administration. When Horton implied that prosecutors leaked grand jury details to certain reporters, Eddie Curran interrupted saying “that’s not true”. Horton replied that Q&A would follow the speech.

Horton continued along the line that “Alabama has developed a tradition of political persecutions”, then launched into his critique of Alabama newspapers, focusing on the Newhouse / Advance Publications Birmingham News, Mobile Press Register and Huntsville Times, and the Gannett Montgomery Advertiser. He said that coverage of the Siegelman case has been driven by “internet-based publications”.

Horton stated that local reporting was “not particularly reliable” and that reporters are “too willing to accept… statements from the Government”. He said that interested people should “complain about it” in polite ‘Letters to the Editor’. He closed quoting Thomas Jefferson, “duty” of the “energetic” press is to “hold (politicians) to a higher standard”.

I enjoyed and applauded Horton’s speech - I appreciate the history he presented and I totally agree that the press is often incurious and uncritical. However, at times his narrative seemed to consist of dropping names without context - as if just saying the word “Rove” creates context.

I’m only going to provide what I think were highlights of the Q&A, some of the questions weren’t.

Horton asked Don Siegelman to speak first, asking why didn’t your administration respond effectively to negative press reports, especially Curran?
Siegelman thanked Horton for his efforts and noted Simpson as a “true American hero” for her testimony. He said that his PR “could’ve been handled better”.

Horton asked Siegelman if he should have been seeking national media attention instead of local media.
Siegelman agreed that he should’ve been speaking nationally the whole time.

Horton called on Curran for the first question.
Curran asked Horton why he “didn’t call him about his reporting”, at which point he was shouted down. I don’t recall that Horton answered him.

IMO that crippled one of Horton’s main points, in that he complained about lack of fact-checking on the local level, but that he didn’t bother to fact-check his own narrative.

Someone asked a question about Horton testifying to the Judiciary Committee.
Horton said he has testified three times and expects to be called again, but that he thinks that people with first hand knowledge of the case should testify.

Someone asked about Abramoff’s ties to Alabama.
Horton throws around several names, but not much detail. He notes that a Justice Department official was recently indicted for helping Abramoff, and uses that to illustrate corruption.

One of the sponsors, a self-described “screaming Democrat”, asks the audience to be respectful, and proceeds to insult Curran. When he protests, he is shouted down.

A self-described “accredited PR” person speaks about the “brotherhood of attorneys” who don’t go after each other and that media-savvy attorneys drive coverage as they “defend their client in the media”.

There’s a little more, but I think it’s fair to characterize it as Bush, Gonzalez, and Alice Martin bashing.

Good times