American Express: 'Don't Leave for Prison Without It'

"Political parties... are only allowed to spend money on political activities, such as fundraising, running campaigns and registering voters."

-- Miami Herald, April 21, 2010

The big news in Florida today is that the IRS, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the North District of Florida in Tallahassee, and the FBI are investigating top officials of the Florida Republican Party, including the leading Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, Marco Rubio, "to determine whether they misused their party credit cards for personal expenses." The Miami Herald reports that the probe could lead to criminal charges of tax evasion and making false statements under oath.

The report of an investigation should come as no surprise. The scandalous misuse of Republican Party credit cards has been in the state's headlines for months. According to the St. Petersburg Times, at least $1.8 million was rung up in American Express charges to party credit cards "in 2008 alone."

Rubio himself spent more than $100,000 in the two-year period from November, 2006 to November 2008. Among other items he billed as G.O.P. "political" expenses were:

• $765 at Apple's online store for "computer supplies."
• $25.76 from Everglades Lumber for "supplies."
• $53.49 at Winn-Dixie in Miami for "food."
• $68.33 at Happy Wine in Miami for "beverages'' and "meal."
• $78.10 for two purchases at Farm Stores groceries in suburban Miami.
• $412 at All Fusion Electronics, a music equipment store in Miami, for "supplies."

The Miami Herald adds today:

The charges included repairs to the family minivan, grocery bills, plane tickets for his wife, and purchases from retailers ranging from a wine store near his home to Apple's on-line store. Rubio also charged the party for dozens of meals during the annual lawmaking session in Tallahassee, even though he received taxpayer subsidies for his meals.
* * *
Rubio acknowledged in February that he double-billed state taxpayers and the party for several plane flights from South Florida to Tallahassee. He said he would pay the party back about for eight flights totaling about $3,000, but the party said Tuesday it had not received a check.

Other news reports have described how top Republicans in Florida paid with Other People's Plastic hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of claimed "political" expenses such as jewelry and sporting goods. Among others, the FBI is investigating disgraced former Speaker of the State House of Representatives Ray Sansom, whose family traveled to England on the G.O.P.'s AmEx ticket, racking up "nearly $40,000 at a London hotel, and more than $3,600 in sightseeing expenses."

"Political activities" all, we are sure.

In addition to Rubio and Sansom, the St. Pete Times reports "ex-state party chairman Jim Greer and ex-party executive director Delmar Johnson" are being investigated "to determine whether they misused their party credit cards for personal expenses... ."

All of which will make absolutely no difference in the upcoming Florida primary or general election. As John Cole puts it:

There is simply no greater achievement in the modern conservative movement than becoming a martyr. Accused by the 'Obama IRS' and the “lamestream media” of wrongdoing? They’ll rally around [Rubio] even if it turns out he was using the card to pay for gay sex with aborted fetuses in a bondage-themed club. He doesn’t have to explain anything - all he has to do is deny it and play the victim, and let the “principled conservatives” in the wingnut wurlitzer and the blogosphere do the rest.

Suicide Alert!

Are U.S. Senate Republicans feeling suicidal? Steve Benen's latest report suggests they need some intervention to protect them from themselves: "As of this afternoon, it appears Republicans are prepared to link arms and take their chances, fighting to protect Wall Street from accountability."

Electoral Shock Therapy

Not long ago we mentioned a relative who was a lifelong Republican and a highly successful office holder until, as he says, "the party left me." He's not alone:

Life-long Republican Chris Currey has a thoughtful piece over at David Frum's place, explaining his belief that his party has lost its mind. Currey doesn't exactly break new ground -- his fears and concerns will no doubt seem familiar to most who keep up with current events -- but his piece is worth reading anyway.

Steve Benen is right. Republican businessman Currey's article is thoughtful and compelling. Bennen also is right when he says that when a political party goes bat-shit crazy, as the neo-Republican Party so clearly has, "the only way to bring it to its senses is for it to suffer electoral humiliation."

The GOP went sharply to the right after the 2004 elections, and it lost in 2006. Republicans then went even further to the right, and lost in 2008. In response, they went even further still to the right.

If 2010 is an electoral bonanza for the GOP, the party will assume that the way a party wins elections is to have its members become stark raving mad. If 2010 is another humiliating failure for the GOP, the party may be more inclined to identify their most ridiculous and dangerous habits, and consider where they went wrong.

Republicans appear to have lost Chris Currey, and with good reason. But unless Currey has a lot of like-minded friends voting in November, the party won't bother to try and get him back.

We've said it before. It needs repeating: in a two-party democratic system, both parties need each other to stay honest and responsive to the needs of the nation as a whole. Restoring the Republican Party's sanity is as important to the Democratic Party as it is to the nation's political health.

If it takes electoral shock therapy, so be it.

"Oh, God"

We've not heard Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal speak before. So, we were taken aback last night when some unknown at MSNBC muttered, "Oh, god," as he swept down the hall of that mansion to deliver the Republican response to Barack Obama's address to Congress.

The Huffington Post says, "Honestly, it would be about fifteen whole seconds before that reaction was really appropriate." No, more like five. "Amateurish" and "laughable"? That's wa-a-ay overly kind.

We thought it was puerile, fatuous, and insulting to everyone over the age of five. Or, as Gawker puts it, Jindal "sounded creepily like a monologue from Kenneth the Page, 30 Rock's bewildered hillbilly."

Worse, as John Amato points out, he didn't have straight even the few facts he sing-songed. There is no "levitating train" in the Obama administration's stimulus bill. Jindal came across, as Digby says, like "a hypocritical, lying jackass."

A single really wretched speech doesn't necessarily doom a politician, one supposes in this era of short attention spans. But with that crooked smile of a used car salesman, moronic delivery style, and fantastical supposed facts, Bobby Jindal now joins the very exclusive club of people who can make Sarah Palin look smart by comparison.

GOP Caucus - Live!

John Boehner, Lindsey Graham & cohorts caucus on Saturday Night Live:

GOP "Nilhilists" Sink Bailout Bill

We spent some time tracking down first-hand reports from anyone who could bear witness to what really happened on the floor of the House of Representatives yesterday when the bipartisan credit crisis bailout bill failed. Democrats delivered on their promise to hold their collective noses and deliver more than one-half of the total votes necessary; Republicans broke their promise to deliver the rest from their own members.

C-Span isn't permitted, by House rules, to show anything except blowhard congress-persons making wind for the camera. Most of the cable Tee-Vee political reporters, who have to travel with camera crews, customarily are kept off the House floor and had to hang around the cloakrooms. So, they could share only second- and third-hand spin stories.

But on Jim Lehrer's News Hour, the New York Times' John Shaw saw it with his own eyes:

Well, it was very interesting, because it's hard to know really how each party does their whipping operations, getting votes, but the Democratic side was much more active.

The speaker was right in the middle of it. There were swarms of people around her. They were feeding her notes. She was carefully monitoring the vote. She was sending emissaries over to the Republican side.

On the Republican side -- and, again, they may do it differently -- but the minority leader, John Boehner, was pretty much alone. It didn't seem like many people wanted to talk to him. Roy Blunt, the whip, was pretty much standing off by himself. His deputy, Mr. Cantor, was also pretty quiet.

So visually it looked like the Democrats were working harder. And at one point, Pelosi looked over and saw that not a lot of movement was going on that side. And she just said, in a very loud voice, "We're finished," which signaled that she was done trying to get more Democrats to vote for the package.

Boehner's peculiar quiescence inspired Rachel Maddow of MSNBC to ask a follow-up question -- "Who leads the Republican Party right now?" She came up with a surprising answer: the aforesaid "pretty quiet" Eric Cantor (R-Va), who is Assistant Minority Whip in charge of rounding up votes for the 'lonely' John Boehner.

Even conservative columnist David Brooks is disgusted by the Republicans' behavior:

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century. With this vote, they’ve taken responsibility for this economy, and they will be held accountable. The short-term blows will fall on John McCain, the long-term stress on the existence of the Republican Party.

Brooks holds out hope that some cosmetic changes might make the bill more palatable to Republicans on a second go-around to pass the bill, probably on Thursday. Possibly so, but it seems to us it will be even more difficult to talk anyone who voted "no" yesterday into voting "yes" tomorrow.

How much more embarrassing, and difficult for constituents to swallow, would it be for a congressman -- say, like the hapless Jeff Miller -- to vote for the bailout bill after voting against it? Inescapably, such a vote would mean the congressman voted at least once this week against the national interest.

Dangerous Setback

The Pensacola News Journal gets it spot-on:

The intelligence "compromise" working its way through Congress has one major impact: It sanctions lawbreaking at the highest reaches of the federal government, guaranteeing there will be more of it. For a nation born under the powerful impetus of the Founders' intent to limit governmental power — especially executive power — it is a dangerous and far-reaching setback.

There's more.

Change You Can't Believe In

Remember the days when every Fourth of July Republican and Democratic politicians around the nation would take to the hustings and proclaim that they, more than their opponents, revered the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? That they would defend them to their dying day?

Times have changed. Some are noticing.

• Democrats Cave to GOP On Spying Bill
• Democrats Cave on Telecom Immunity
  
• Obama Caves to Bush on Domestic Spying
• Obama Silent As Democrats Give Bush More Spying Powers
  
• Congress Gives In On Wiretapping
• Congress Makes A Bad Deal on Wiretapping
  
• House Democrats Capitulate To White House -- Again
  
• FISA Compromise: It's Christmas At The White House
• We Modeled It After the Very Successful Little Big Horn Compromise
  
• 'Change' Is Just Another Word For 30 PIeces of Silver
• The New Surveillance Bill: Worst of Both Worlds
• Democrats Have Legalized Bush's War Crimes
• Carte Blanch To Illegally Spy on Americans
• House Falls Down on the Job
• A Bad Deal On Surveillance
• Compromise? Try Cop-Out
• New Wiretapping Bill Called 'Repugnant' and a 'Capitulation'
  

Constitutional Crime

The U.S. Constitution was mortally wounded today by 293 hit-and-run drivers. Eyewitnesses report it was a bipartisan crime, involving both Republicans and Democrats.

Knowledgeable investigators say the forensic evidence points to multiple motives for the crime. Republican perpetrators left evidence at the scene openly advocating for a more authoritarian government that treats individual liberties as expendable.

Tire tracks reveal their Democratic co-conspirators were craven go-alongs, following orders. First, because they are terrified of what Republican gang members would say about them to the voters; and second, because "the Democratic leadership fears the consequences of their previous complicity in Bush’s illegal spying programs."

Four-Letter Words Dept.

Former Texas senator Phil Gramm, who "slipped an Enron-backed provision into the Commodities Futures Modernization Act" that made the Enron scandal almost inevitable, is now John McCain's "econ brain." He's also a vice-president and (until three weeks ago) a lobbyist for an investment bank that helped bring about the mortgage crisis.

Candidate for President of 9 /11

The candidate for President of 9/11 is coming to Pensacola this week. If he can afford the bus fare.

"Sure, he has no foreign or national policy experience, and both his personal life and political career are riddled with scandal," said Hammond. "But in the key area of having been on TV on 9/11, the other candidates simply cannot match him. And as we saw in 2004, that's what matters most to voters in this post-9/11 world."
* * *
"Letting 9/11 fall into the hands of the Democrats in 2008 would be nothing short of a national tragedy," Giuliani said. "Ever since 9/11 was founded that fateful day on 9/11, 9/11 has stood for one thing: 9/11."

He will speak on this topic: "Subject, Verb, 9/11."

John McCain's Disqualifying Speech

Last night, John McCain delivered what is surely one of the worst written, most apathetically delivered speeches in American political history. McCain might have been sleep-walking for all the enthusiasm he showed.

But it was the scripted speech itself that deserves closer attention. It was, in a word, execrable. Chock-full of banalities, adolescent bromides, and loosely associated clichés. The speech was completely unsuitable -- either as an inspirational call to his followers as McCain prepares to march forward, or as a vehicle to introduce himself and his vision to the rest of the nation, or as a compelling recitation of what he stands for. It didn't even rise to the common, low level of a toastmaster's fawning introduction of his family and key supporters. In the unlikely event you have nothing better to do, you can inflict the whole thing on yourself here.

The speech simply made no sense. Worse, both the text and the delivery give a dispiriting, if not downright frightening, foretaste of just how bad John McCain would be at using the "bully pulpit" of the presidency.

Almost as remarkable was MSNBC's coverage of the event. Joe Scarborough, Keith Olbermann, Howard Fineman, and even (so it seems from the audio) the stage hands couldn't stop laughing.

We don't particularly object to derisive reviews of politicians who spout nonsense and call it policy. In fact, the nation could have used a lot more derision in the past seven years, especially when covering serial liars like this guy and that one.

Still, it would have been a service to viewers if the boys in the studio had sobered up long enough to explain why John McCain's victory speech last night virtually disqualifies him for national office.

Sublime Justice

Frank Rich, NYT. Jan. 6, 2008:

The party that has milked religious conservatives for votes for two decades is traumatized by the prospect that one of that ilk might actually become its standard-bearer. Especially if the candidate in question is a preacher who bashes Wall Street and hedge-fund managers and threatens to take a Christian attitude toward those too poor to benefit from the Bush tax cuts.

No wonder the long list of party mandarins eager to take down Mr. Huckabee includes Rush Limbaugh, Robert Novak, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and National Review. Dan Bartlett, the former close Bush adviser, has snickered at Mr. Huckabee’s presumably low-rent last name. Fred Barnes was reduced to incoherent babbling when a noticeably gloomy Fox News announced Mr. Huckabee’s victory Thursday night.

Ain't it fun?

Ron Paul Out-Foxed

The conventional Beltway wisdom is that in the wake of Mike Huckabee's victory in Iowa, John McCain benefits. Adam Nagourney and Carl Hulse repeat that pre-cooked narrative, for those of you who just returned from Planet Tralfamador.

Why McCain? Because G.O.P. party leaders are so nervous about the Franken-gelical monster they've created. Sadly, No explains:

When the Republicans’ Christianist sect decided that it was sick and tired of being played for fools by its own party, its adherents decided to throw their support behind one of their own. And because this particular candidate doesn’t show the same enthusiasm for tax-cutting and war-mongering that Mitt Romney and Rudy Guliani do, the GOP establishment is freaking the hell out.

Things will be different in New Hampshire, we're told. In the Granite State, "there are far fewer of the evangelical conservatives who were key to Huckabee's Iowa victory."

Maybe so. But if the state's "Live Free Or Die" motto has any remaining resonance, Republicans looking for "change" -- which we are assured the Iowa caucuses signaled -- New Hampshire voters might want to take a look at candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex).

Paul drew 10% of the GOP caucus votes in Iowa, besting both Rudy Giullani and nearly beating Fred Thompson.* Last quarter, he pulled in more bucks than any GOP candidate.

He's a rock-ribbed libertarian, as his fascinating appearance last night on Bill Moyers Reports firmly establishes: a true "small government" conservative without all the biblical baggage and with a far firmer understanding of the Constitution.

So, you'd think Ron Paul would be a plausible heir to head the so-called "Reagan coalition." The thing is, Fox Cable News won't let Ron Paul debate in New Hampshire.

Giulliani and Thompson? They're gold with Fox News.

So can someone tell us, just when was Fox Cable News appointed Arbiter of GOP Political Correctness?
------------------

* Iowa Caucus results.
HT to comment below.

Java Joe Rejects Republicans

Pensacola's own Joe Scarborough, host of the new NBC show "Morning Joe," quoted by Jacques Steinberg in today's NYT:

“I’m just as conservative as I was in 1994, when everyone was calling me a right-wing nut,” he said. “I think the difference is the Republican Party leaders, a lot of them, have run a bloated government, have been corrupt, and have gone a very, very long way from what we were trying to do in 1994. Also, the Republican Party has just been incompetent.”

Is Scarborough still a right-wing nut? Probably. But he's not so stupid as to overlook rank incompetence or the path to higher ratings, or both.

Two Dinosaurs in Local News

Local radio Friday afternoon was reporting that Dr. Dino, more formally known as Kent Hovind, was sentenced today to ten years in the poky. Hovind was convicted late last year on 58 felony and misdemeamor counts related to tax evasion. His wife's sentencing has been delayed.

(UPDATE: Michael Stewart has the quick story and, a day later, the full story at the PNJ.)

Hovind made a small fortune himself -- or, if you still believe in fairy tales, for god -- by preaching that dinosaurs cohabited the earth with mankind. The root of his problem seems to be that god forgot to file his income tax returns and so the IRS turned to Hovind, instead.

Maybe Hovind was right about one thing. At least one dinosaur coexists with mankind: Tom Banjanin, former county commissioner for the district that includes Pensacola Beach.

Banjanin announced today that he will be a candidate to nuzzle up to whatever public feeding trough he can manage to fool somebody into giving him. Today, it's the special election to fill state House District 3, recently vacated by Holly Benson after she was named head of Florida's Department of Business and Professional Regulation.

Before making a career of getting paid to do nothing as a county commissioner, Banjanin learned his trade as a state representative, where he also did nothing. So, you can certainly say he has experience.

Republican voters will have their second chance in four months to vote against the insipid Banjanin when early voting begins January 29.

Dr. Dino's Judgment Day

The federal court jury Thursday afternoon convicted Kent Hovind ("Dr. Dino") and his wife Jo of multiple counts of tax fraud. The jury deliberated only two and a half hours; much of that time, we suspect, was occupied by ordering lunch and selecting the foreman.

Nicole Lozare once again drew the short straw at the Pensacola News Journal:

"Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism and Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, was found guilty of 58 counts, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes. He faces a maximum of 288 years in prison.

"Jo Hovind was charged and convicted in 44 of the counts involving evading bank-reporting requirements. She faces up to 225 years in prison but was allowed to remain free pending the couple's sentencing on Jan. 9."

Many may suppose the convictions were a foregone conclusion when Dr. Dino's lawyer was admonished by the judge for wasting the court's time and, the next day, both defendants elected not to call any witnesses or to testify themselves. The truth, however, is that unlike cynical hypocrites such as the Hovinds, who made a small fortune peddling biblical fantasies to simple-minded religionists, lawyers have to work in a world of reality with the facts they are given.

In the end, reality always prevails, sooner or later.

Amplification Dept.
Two Dinosaurs
Dr. Dino gets his sentence.

Dr. Dino Defense Rests

UPDATES BELOW
In Wednesday's installment about the Dr. Dino trial, the Pensacola News Journal reported "The defense has subpoenaed 10 witnesses." For Thursday's newspaper, however, the PNJ is reporting "the defense will not present a case."

As we said yesterday, there is "literary precedent" for this. Given a defendant who scams millions by preaching that dinosaurs and mankind were set down on Earth simultaneously, Morgenhall himself couldn't have said it any better:

"Tactics, you see. We'd decided not to trouble with science."

---------
UPDATE # 1

In the print edition of Thursday's paper we're told, "Before the break, [defense counsel Alan] Richey discussed with [Judge] Rodgers the witnesses he planned to call. After Wednesday's session, Richey said there was no need for a defense."

Sounds to us as if the judge may have issued a gentle -- or not so gentle -- private warning to Richey. Something along these lines, we imagine:

"I will not have any religious screwballs making a circus out of my courtroom, Mr. Richey. So I suggest you check your witness list twice to be sure every single one of the ten witnesses you have subpoenaed has personal knowledge of some admissible fact relevant to the case, not just a hair-brained opinion or 'faith-based' belief that defies reality. Otherwise, the U.S. Marshall will be measuring you for an orange jumpsuit, too."

UPDATE # 2

Red State Rabble ("A skeptic's dispatches from the fly-over zone") got off a good one about the defense's failure to offer any evidence:

"Hey, wait just a minute. That's the same proof they offer for creationism and intelligent design."

Dr. Dino's "Terrible Trumpet"

"There are ways and ways of losing."

-- John Mortimer, The Dock Brief, Sc. 2

To her credit, Nicole Lozare slips in a bit of courtroom color in her article summarizing yesterday's doings at the trial of Dr. Dino. At last, readers are given a taste of the real flavor of the courtroom, with all the bumblings and fumblings and missteps and outbursts that try judge's souls and make the proceedings ever so human:

"[O]n Tuesday, it wasn't always clear where [defense lawyer] Richey's lengthy cross-examination of Schneider was going. The Washington attorney was admonished by U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers for asking irrelevant questions.

"One example: Richey questioned Schneider about a letter U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson sent to Hovind in response to the evangelist's questions about taxation. Nelson wrote that the IRS is committed to ensuring that "everyone pays their fair share of taxes."

"'Does everyone in your office pay their fair share of taxes?'" Richey asked Schneider. Schneider didn't respond because Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Heldmyer objected and the judge agreed it was irrelevant."

Although Lozare doesn't give us an exact body count, offering that snippet as "one example" suggests that, overall, Tuesday wasn't a good day for the defendants -- or Dr. Dino's defense lawyer.

"When Richey spent several minutes looking for documents, [Judge] Rodgers excused the jury. She then told Richey he was wasting their time. Rodgers then suggested Richey come in earlier or stay later to make sure his files were organized."

Who is this Richey fellow? "DodgerDean" over at The Panda's Thumb speculated last September in the comments section that he might be the same Port Hadlock, Washington, attorney who previously represented one Nadine Griffen who was convicted of filing a false tax return on her earnings as a saleswoman of off-shore seminars which "promoted and marketed fraudulent tax schemes."

Well, as they say, there are many opportunities to specialize in the law. You just have to find your niche.

The larger question Lozare's dispatch inspires is this: Is there any method to Dr. Dino's madness in having Mr. Richey as his lawyer? One precedent, of a literary kind, comes to mind: John Mortimer's classic radio play, The Dock Brief.

The play was later filmed and released under the title "Trial and Error" starring Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough. As Bosley Crowther explained in a New York Times review at the time of original release, the film, like the play on which it is based, is --

"[N]othing more than a long dialogue ... between a meek little man [played by Attenborough] accused of murdering his eternally cheerful wife and the ponderous and dull-witted barrister [Peter Sellers] assigned by the court to defend him.
* * *
"The humor is in the fumbling discourse, the clumsy clichés by which these two expose their pathetically dull backgrounds and their horribly middle-class minds.

"The law's a tricky business," Mr. Sellers sagely observes, and Mr. Attenborough, after some cogitation on that weighty observation, replies, with the profundity of a pundit, "It is a bit chancy, yes."

We can't find a full text version of the play on-line, but Wisconsin law professor John Kidwell's essay offers a deliciously detailed description of the plot and liberally quotes from the script of this hilarious satire of lawyers at their work:

"The Dock Brief ... gives new meaning to the phrase 'ineffective assistance of counsel.' It opens with Morgenhall, a barrister played by Peter Sellers, being admitted to the cell of a man who has been accused of murdering his wife. Morgenhall, we quickly learn, is an unsuccessful barrister who has been waiting for years for the court to assign him a case; in England such an assigned case is referred to as a 'dock brief' -- hence the name of the film. Morgenhall’s first dock brief -- and in fact, apparently, first case of any kind -- is the defense of the unfortunate Mr. Fowle, played by Richard Attenborough. Fowle is the meek proprietor of a birdseed shop who has killed his wife because she saw humor in everything, and her raucous laughter and practical jokes finally drove him over the edge.
* * *
Most of the film is set in Fowle’s cell, and consists of Morgenhall’s discussion with Fowle about the strategies to be employed to obtain Fowle’s acquittal, notwithstanding ... that Perry Mason, Clarence Darrow and Cicero working together couldn’t have succeeded in getting Fowle off.
* * *
Ordinarily we expect the client to be the victim of some predicament, who turns to the lawyer to be rescued. Here ... that assumption is turned on its head. Morgenhall the lawyer is the one who needs help lest his whole career be a complete failure. When Fowle admits his guilt Morgenhall suggests he is being selfish and inconsiderate.

Morgenhall [the lawyer]: You think you killed your wife.
Fowle [the defendant]: Seems to me.
Morgenhall: Mr. Fowle. Look at yourself objectively. On questions of birdseed I have no doubt you may be infallible -- but on a vital point like this might you not be mistaken . . . ? Don’t answer.
Fowle: Why not sir?
Morgenhall: Before you drop the bomb of a reply, consider who will be wounded. Are the innocent to suffer?
Fowle: I only want to be honest.
Morgenhall: But you’re a criminal, Mr. Fowle. You’ve broken through the narrow fabric of honesty. You are free to be kind, human, to do good.
Fowle: But what I did to her . . .
Morgenhall: She’s passed, you know, out of your life. You’ve set up new relationships. You’ve picked out me.

When the defendant gently points out that, in fact, he hadn't picked Morgenhall to defend him -- instead the court had assigned the lawyer to his case at random -- Morganhall is momentarily crushed. But he recovers quickly:

Morgenhall: Never mind. You hurt me temporarily, Fowle, I must confess. It might have been kinder to have kept me in ignorance. But now, it’s done. Let’s get down to business. And Fowle -
Fowle: Yes, sir.
Morgenhall: Remember, you’re dealing with a fellow man. A man no longer young. Remember the hopes I’ve pinned on you and try . . .
Fowle: Try?
Morgenhall: Try to spare me more pain.
Fowle: I will, sir. Of course I will.

And so it goes with the two of them, lawyer and client, sitting in the jail cell before trial as the lawyer Morgenhall tries out first one defense and then another, practices imaginary witness examinations, and dreams of delivering the clinching final argument that will win the day in court. With every exercise, however, the client gently, so as not to hurt the lawyer's feelings, points out there is no such witness as he has imagined exists. There is no evidence of his innocence, no reasoned basis for the lawyer's fantasies, because the defendant really did it.

In the end, it seems, the husband is convicted of killing his wife. It develops, as well, that his lawyer has thoroughly botched the trial. He cross-examined no one, he called no witnesses of his own. He was struck dumb before the jury when it came time for his summation.

Back in the cell after the jury has returned its verdict, the lawyer continues to be assailed by self-doubts while simultaneously yearning for his client to assuage them. From a hard copy of the play we happen to have on hand:

MORGENHALL: And then they called that doctor.
FOWLE: You were right not to bother with him.
MORGENHALL: Tactics, you see. We'd decided not to trouble with science.
FOWLE: So we had. And with Bateson . . .
MORGENHALL: No, Fowle. I must beware of your flattery. I think I might have asked Bateson . . .
FOWLE: It wouldn't have made a farthing's difference. A glance told them he was a demon.
MORGENHALL: He stood there, so big and red, with his no tie and dirty collar. I rose up to question him and suddenly it seemed as if there were no reason for us to converse. I remembered what you said about his jokes, his familiarity with your wife. What had he and I in common? I turned from him in disgust. I think that jury guessed the reason for my silence with friend Bateson.

As for the final argument:

MORGENHALL: I stood up, Mr. Fowle, and it was the moment I'd waited for. Ambition had driven me to it, the moment when I was alone with what I wanted. Everyone turned to me, twelve blank faces in the jury box, eager to have the grumpy looks wiped off them. The judge was silent. The prosecutor courteously pretended to be asleep. I only had to open my mouth and pour words out. What stopped me?
FOWLE: What?
Morgenhall: Fear. That's what's suggested.

Eventually, however, it dawns on Morgenhall that his client may not appreciate the gravity of what he supposes to be the court's judgment:

MORGENHALL: I lost, Mr. Fowle. You may not be aware of it. It may not have been hammered home to you yet. But your case is lost.
FOWLE: But there are ways and ways of losing.
MORGENHALL: That's true, of course.
FOWLE: I noticed your artfulness right at the start, when the policeman gave evidence. You pulled out that red handkerchief, slowly and deliberately, like a conjuring trick.
MORGENHALL: And blew?
FOWLE: A sad, terrible trumpet.
MORGENHALL: Unnerved him, I thought.
FOWLE: He never recovered. There was no call to ask questions after that.

The surprise comes when the lawyer at last notices that Fowle appears altogether too happy for a man who has just been convicted. As Prof. Kidwell describes the scene:

"Fowle, somewhat reluctantly, discloses that he is about to be released. When Morgenhall asks why, Fowle even more reluctantly admits it is because the trial has been ruled 'no good at all—it is all null and void—because the barrister selected for him was no good—an old crock.'

Morgenhall's incompetence, it seems, was the best defense of all.

FOWLE: Don't you see? If I'd had a barrister who asked questions and made clever speeches I'd be as dead as mutton. Your artfulness saved me... . The dumb tactics. They paid off! I'm alive!"

It seems improbable that here in Pensacola we will see Dr. Dino escape justice by relying on a similar collection of "dumb tactics" orchestrated by his out of state defense lawyer. Still, it isn't totally out of the question. As The Dock Brief defendant points out (above) to his own court-appointed lawyer, "There are ways and ways of losing."

Dr. Dino On God's Payroll

Up to bat with the latest Pensacola News Journal report about Dr. Dino's tax fraud trial is Nicole Lozare. With the excessive credulity she usually musters for any fantastic fable, Lozare again refers to Hovind, erroneously as we have hinted before, as a "tax protestor." Then she reports without a hint of irony:

"Despite a million-dollar business and speaking engagement earnings of nearly $50,000 a year, Pensacola evangelists Kent and Jo Hovind did not count the money as income.
* * *
Special IRS Agent Scott Schneider testified Monday that the couple denied that they had any income in numerous documents.
* * *
"Kent Hovind, a tax protester, makes a substantial amount of money. Schneider testified that in 2002, the ministry sold more than $1.8 million in Christian merchandise. But Hovind believes he and his employees work for God, are paid by God and, therefore, aren't subject to taxation."

It's difficult to believe Schneider actually testified that Hovind "believes" his own bull. More likely, what agent Schneider testified is that this is what Hovind claimed.

Maybe Lozare was just exhausted. She writes that Schneider was on the witness stand "for nearly eight hours," from which one can assume (because the reporter isn't saying) that the judge is making the lawyers work overtime after a week off due to a defense attorney's illness.

In any event, Hovind's substantial income didn't stop him or his wife from pleading poverty to a local medical establishment:

"'Dr. and Mrs. Kent Hovind do not earn salaries,' wrote Martha Harris, the trust secretary of Creation Science Evangelism to Baptist. 'As health insurance is not provided for this couple, we would appreciate (financial assistance.)'"

That little anecdote reminds us of a line from Edward Albee's great stage play about self-deception, Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf? One of the house guests, Nick, is explaining to George that he's financially set because he married a woman whose father was a traveling preacher. The preacher collected a fortune from Christian simpletons, he says, "And when he died there was a lot of money."

George asks, slightly mystified, but wasn't that "God's money?"

"No," says Nick, "He spent God's money and saved his own."