Eric Hanson’s Bragging: Hanson’s Accomplishments revisited. Before continuing with today’s piece, I am going to start with the ending, because it may well be the most interesting tidbit of the day, even though it was still ongoing. About the last thing that was said before we broke for the evening, was Mike Martin talking about being at a retreat with Eric Hanson, and Hanson was bragging about getting a seat on the CON Board, apparently with the help of the IHS check. For those that have been reading these notes, or even for new readers, a couple of months ago I wrote an entry entitled The Accomplishments of Eric Hanson. In that entry, I mentioned that the website of US Strategies, Eric Hanson’s company, had a list of his accomplishments, and the site basically brags that he could get people seats on CON Boards. It is a good example of how sometimes you have to squint a bit to make out what is legal and illegal, and sometimes the only difference is who shouts the loudest. Interestingly, not long after I published that entry, the site went down. A few weeks later, we called US Strategies to see if they still existed and what is going on about the site. They acted surprised the site was down and said a tech had been working on it. But you know what? It has been another six or eight weeks, and the site is still down. So much for bragging. However, through the miracle of the wayback machine, here is a link to the archived page. Link to Hanson’s AccomplishmentsNote the third and fourth entries.
Continue Reading–143 words [...]
|
|||||
|
Reflections after week one. I am working on a chart and a timeline, demonstrative exhibits in the parlance of the courtroom, and should have them published within a few days. So what has been won and lost at one week into the trial? The courtroom is a hazy environment where things are never as clear as we would like them to be, even so close to the source. Between the poles of the true believers and the skeptics, the environment is an ideal milieu for seeing what you want to see, or what you’re predisposed to see. The way to get the story right is to keep a little distance and to let the story unfold at its own pace. But in a room full of passions and emotions and the seriousness of what is ultimately being decided, it is sometimes difficult to stay close to the story but just far enough away to avoid being swept into it. On the one hand we are talking about the downside of American democracy, governmental corruption; and on the other hand, we’re talking about ending careers and putting people in jail. We had better get it right. Not just the judge. Not just the jury. But we should know and understand what has happened deep in our minds and our hearts, before we can easily move on. And we want to get it right. There are other issues that not only touch us personally but reach into the tenants of our society. Issues like the possibility of a politically motivated prosecution. The faith and trust of a people who have come to expect and accept an increasingly dark world, but in their hearts, we still very much want to believe in things. And for all of them, for all of us, we should never take these issues lightly. We really want to get it right. [Final] Before writing today’s entry, I feel that I should respond to a post as I’ve picked up some more readers with the start of the Siegelman-Scrushy-Hamrick-Roberts trial. I often write about impressions or themes or perceptions, and for those who have been following these notes, they’ll know this kind of reporting has been fairly consistent going back to the trial in Birmingham. This means that I often look at the proceedings from various vantage points, including the public, the jury and the various legal teams. These impressions are not necessarily formed by my personal thoughts or opinions but they are usually an analysis of how things played out in court or of the themes the various parties are developing. I don’t know Nick Bailey and do not know much about him except for what he is purported to have seen, and I know the statements that he has made to the authorities. My assessment yesterday was that what we have “learned” via the themes put forth by the defense teams was that Bailey is a liar. From inside the courtroom and most likely from within the jury box, that theme would be unavoidable. I was not saying that I knew or believed Nick Bailey was really a liar, and I will continue to report on the evolving perceptions that are felt from within the courtroom. |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Report from Birmingham - All Rights Reserved |
|||||