Kyle Whitmire, author of the Weekly’s cover story on Larry Langford, will be on Matt Murphy’s talk show on WAPI-1070 this afternoon. The show runs from 4:00 to 7:00 PM. I guess it will be more cordial than Matt’s run-in with Frank Matthews last Friday.
Also, check out this article from today’s Birmingham News (h/t Blues reader Helen in comments):
Larry Langford told U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawyers that as Fairfield mayor and a Jefferson County commissioner, he regularly asked businessmen who received contracts to contribute to charities he controlled.
Langford, who now is Birmingham’s mayor, testified last June that he asked the contractors, as his friends, to contribute to a scholarship fund he controlled and a skeet shooting charity. Langford said in response to questions from SEC lawyers that he asked many people to contribute.
“Everybody, yes,” he said, according to a document obtained by The Birmingham News and identified as a June SEC interview.
Larry is, predictably, angry at the Birmingham News (and the Weekly as well, I’m sure) for quoting his own words in the paper. The other day, I said he was starting to remind me of Dick Cheney; today he sounds more like Bill O’Reilly.
“Everybody, yes,” he said, according to a document obtained by The Birmingham News and identified as a June SEC interview.
I don’t suppose anyone finds it troubling that the Bham News “obtained” a copy of an SEC interview because of who the target is. I’m beginning to believe Langford has a point about being tried in the Bham News instead of in a court of law. The fact they have pulled out the BIG GUN, Brett Backledge(?) is further proof.
After listening to the audio of the Matthews/Murphy interview, I must say I couldn’t make out a word Matthews was saying. I heard Murphy loud and clear though, calling Matthews an “animal” (several times), and shouting at him to “Shut Up”, then saying he was a “discredit to his race”. Sounds more like Murphy had the “meltdown”.
As I’ve said in previous post on this subject, I really do understand the frustration some feel because their candidate didn’t win the Mayoral election. I felt the same way in the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential selection. I just knew our country was in trouble and destined for war and debt and all kinds of bad things, and I was right. In that case, and in this case, the Democratic process had to play out. I pray your fears about Langford aren’t realized for the sake of the citizens of the city of Birmingham, but if they are realized, there is really nothing you can do about it.
BHB: There’s this thing called the “The Freedom of Information Act.” Before you go all conspiracy theory, I’d suggest that you check it out.
bhb, I agree with you about Matt Murphy. After I listened to the clip, I thought he came off almost as badly as Frank Matthews. I wish he had just let Frank rant, which is clearly what was happening, without doing what talk show hosts always think they have to do: talk. He would have made his point much better without the commentary.
As far as the Birmingham News coverage, surely you don’t think the paper should ignore the fact that the city’s mayor is, and has been for some time, under investigation by the SEC. Larry Langford may or may not have done anything that rises to the level of criminal, but anyone who has closely followed his career and the questionable financial dealings that seem to pop up whenever he’s in charge would have good reason for concern. I know you supported him in the mayor’s race and you want to paint all of this news coverage as some kind of sour grapes, but his behavior just doesn’t pass the smell test.
The Birmingham Weekly, which is not known for right-wing bias, already has an excellent investigative reporter on the story, and the News doesn’t want to be scooped.
Kathy,
I’m sure that you will agree that News Coverage should be fair. I am in no way suggesting the Bham News should not cover the facts of the case. I have a problem with testimony being published in the paper in order to sway public opinion. How is Langford going to have a fair trial by a jury of his peers if he’s already been tried and convicted by the media?
For the record, I swear on all things holy that I did not cast a vote for Larry Langford in the Birmingham Mayoral race, and I repeat, I could care less about Larry Langford personally. I care about the Democratic process. Langford ran for Mayor and he recieved the most votes. I do believe the news coverage, some of the blog coverage and the SEC investigation are more about trying to over turn an election than about any real wrong doing. If Langford turns out to be a bad Mayor, you can say I told you so. I don’t believe he should be constantly harressed by the radio talk show host that are trying to boost their ratings and the news media that are “investigating’ then “convicting” him on the front pages. I believe he should be given a fair chance to either fail or succeed. I pray that for the sake of the city of Birmingham he succeeds.
The news media and those that didn’t vote for Larry Langford need to put the election behind them and try and move forward together for the sake of the city of Birmingham.
The headline in yesterday’s Bham News was about the School Head being forced to step down. Instead of focusing on Langford, how about focusing on things that matter and that can really have an impact on society?
Tricia,
Did the Bham News “obtain” copies of the testimony by filing a Freedom of Information Act?
“Instead of focusing on Langford, how about focusing on things that matter and that can really have an impact on society?”
bhb, the actions of the mayor of a good-sized city, whether good or bad, can have a tremendous impact on the citizens of that city for a long time to come. The Birmingham News and Weekly are not making up stories about Langford; they are giving the public the opportunity to read his own words in response to questions about bond dealings that he handled on behalf of the citizens of Jefferson County, who were paying his salary at the time. This is public information, and it does us no good to stick our heads in the sand and pretend it’s not out there. If the newspapers didn’t report on this story, they would justifiably be accused of participating in a cover-up.
Kathy,
I’m going to respectfully disagree with you regarding the release of the SEC statement and it’s contents. Where Langford buys his clothes and other personal information has nothing to do with his “handling of public money. He’s been laid bare for all to see, and I do question the motive and the timing of the statements that were “obtained” by the media. Let’s wait and see if Langford is charged with wrong doing, and if he is, he should be tried the American way, which is in a court room,not in the court of public opinion. Larry Langford is an American citizen, where you are innocent until PROVEN guilty beyound a reasonable doubt.
God Bless America.
BHB: I don’t know for sure, but they would be public records and that is the normal way of it. Also, if you go here —
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2007/lr20400.htm — you can see that some of the article clearly came from a publicly released statement.
I don’t see any reason to believe that the journalists are doing anything shady.
bhb, the SEC investigation has absolutely nothing to do with the democratic process or the Birmingham mayoral election. The investigation started before he was ever even running. This is a strictly criminal case– and despite whatever the Bush administration told you, government leaders are not immune from prosecution when they violate the law. (Speaking of fairness, the Weekly even published an article this week with some harsh criticisms of the Bush administration and the DOJ for a paper with a right-wing bias. And I agreed with every one of their criticisms.)
Langford has always had a vendetta with the Birmingham News. That’s why he’s trying to pull the contract for releasing public notices through the publication. He wants to get them back. The News has always been critical of Langford and has not just started up out of nowhere. There was a period after he took office where they let up on him out of fear of losing their contracts, but I suppose it sunk in that they weren’t going to get anywhere by kissing his ample behind. So the coverage continued. Blackledge probably would have already been on the case if he wasn’t busy with his other pet project– the two-year college scandal.
Just because Langford was elected doesn’t give him a free pass. Quite the contrary, anyone elected to office should get MORE attention from the media, as their actions now affect a great deal of people.
His buying of clothes has EVERYTHING to do with his handling of public money. The SEC could care less about his political career, as they are a federal organization, but they saw fit to ask where the money had been spent. Now, if Langford is so reckless with his personal spending habits, how do you think he will be with public funds? And how has he proven to be? Just as reckless. As Whitmire points out, in his personal spending, he pays off debt with more debt. As a JeffCo commissioner, he did the same thing. But where it really becomes relavent is when he wastes PUBLIC money to pay off his PERSONAL debt. THAT is why his personal expendatures are questioned.
If Langford were merely a private citizen, I would agree that nothing should have been released by the media prior to charges and/or convictions. However, Langford does not enjoy that luxury by his own choice. He is not merely a private citizen but a PUBLIC OFFICIAL, and as such, his every move SHOULD be reported so that the public remains informed as to what their representatives are doing. Investigations and trials can take years, and the public could unwittingly elect someone who is not acting in their best interest if they are not supplied with said knowledge.
You said in another post on this subject:
“However, I’m hopeful that as Blackledge and Whitmire bear down on Langford in the public court and as the SEC continues its investigations in the legal ones, the City Council will start to see just how dangerous it is to become a rubber stamp for Langford’s endeavors. ”
And you said in this post:
“Investigations and trials can take years, and the public could unwittingly elect someone who is not acting in their best interest if they are not supplied with said knowledge.”
I sincerely pray the media and the SEC aren’t being used to carry out a “vendetta” and to negavitively influence public opinion and the Birmingham City Council.
The News has not always been critical of the Mayor. I remember they suggested that he could be a possible candidate for governor, when he was Mayor of Fairfield and putting together the Visionland package. That same editorial also suggested a possible female candidate, Judy Thompson, who was promoting the Birmingham Race Track at the time.
As a resident of Birmingham, I am concerned about recent actions that bypass citizen review, such as the announcement, after implementation, that neighborhoods would not have a say in zoning requests. Some things are routine but others need a lot of transparency.
I am also concerned that there is no action on implementation of the recommendations of the priorities listed in the report on Homelessness (May 07), the results of the Disparity Study (last fall) and that the majority of City Councillors are not askiing serious questions about proposals that will affect the citizenry. We’re already suffering enough from bad County Commission decisions.
I’m concerned about the situation with the Birmingham City School Board and the state of public education in Birmingham, in addtition to the issues addressed by Helen.
What on earth does anything I said have to do with a “vendetta”? Bhb, I’m beginning to see that you’ll say just about anything in spite of just about anything that LL does. I’m betting that he could walk outside, shoot a bystander, and you’d say that we shouldn’t talk about that just yet because he hasn’t been convicted and well, the bystander didn’t want him to be mayor.
And Helen, you have an excellent point as to just WHY the media needs to keep an eye on Langford. From the way he went about having these changes passed, it looks as if he fully intended to do it behind the backs of the neighborhood associations. From his record AS MAYOR OF BIRMINGHAM thus far, it looks as if he plans on doing a lot of things without the citizenry knowing about them until it is too late. Thank goodness for Frank Matthews and his big mouth (and the possible addition to others), or we’d likely not know as much as we do.
ALmod,
I’m beginning to see that you are obsessed with “getting” Larry Langford by any means necessary.
Good night and good luck.
No, bhb, you’re just seeing what you want to see. Anyone who’s really followed Langford’s career would see the pattern of, at best, poor financial management and bad judgment. If Larry Langford goes down, it will be his own doing.
Wow! Just wow!
Bhb, you should be commended on reaching that conclusion. I mean, reaching the conclusion that the only time something negative comes out, it is not of that party’s own making but is instead the result of an outer conspiracy… I haven’t heard reasoning like that since Scientology.
I don’t have to “get” Larry Langford at all, to be quite frank. In fact, I don’t even have to say anything at all. Langford and his com padres are quite capable of doing that all on their little lonesomes. They aren’t exactly discreet with what they plan on doing. Again, I go to Frank Matthews… The man is FAMOUS for being as conspicuous as possible and for loving to brag. All I have to do is repeat the same stuff that comes from their mouths. But apparently, if I’m not sticking my head in the sand and ignoring everything that public officials do, I must have some sort of vendetta.
Bravo! L. Ron would be proud!
Dear Kathy,
This sitituation reminds me of what Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas referred to as “a high tech lynching of an uppity black man”. You said “if Langford goes down, it will be his own doing”, all I’m saying is let it be “his own doing” without help from the media and the SEC.
Ah, I see. Because Langford was democratically elected, or perhaps because he is black, or maybe both, he should be exempt from any institutional or media oversight. The public, to whom he is — theoretically — accountable, should accept his desire for secrecy without question, cross its collective fingers, and hope for the best.
Do you think this same standard should be applied to the Bush administration? I don’t.
Kathy,
Of course Langford should be held accountable, all elected officials should be held accountable. However, any “media or institutional oversite” should be fair and ethical, regardless of the race, gender, class or political party of the elected official.
I don’t hear an outcry from “the public” at large, I hear an outcry from certain blogs, certain print media and certain radio talk show host. He has been sued, investigated and castigated so much I’m beginning to feel sorry for him.
As far as I can tell Langford doesn’t have a desire for “secrecy”, but for privacy. Even public figures deserve some level of privacy.
I don’t hear an outcry from “the public” at large
You don’t read letters to the editor or even those who leave comments on blogs? You don’t talk to people by the “water cooler”? Seriously, now… There’s been a HUGE outcry from the public, and perhaps moreso than the print media. At least, there was more of an outrage among the public at the very beginning. The mainstream media took longer to respond.
Langford is being investigated on how he’s handled PUBLIC finances and PUBLIC interests. He’s not being investigated over the SEC for his personal debt– at least he wouldn’t have been if LANGFORD had left his personal debt out of PUBLIC affairs. As for fairness, I don’t know what could be more fair than letting Langford speak for himself. The transcript from the SEC interview was made available by the media in full form and unedited for anyone who wanted to download it. How on earth could that be more balanced and/or fair? These are the unedited words of Larry Langford. Are you suggesting that Langford gave an unfair and unbalanced report on himself?
Does he deserve privacy? Certainly. And he’s got it. When he starts not being able to eat his dinner in peace, then I’ll say enough is enough. But handling of taxpayer money, taking what amounts to a bribe, and dealing with lobbyists is NOT a matter of privacy. Those are things that SHOULD be reported. Privacy is for personal lives. Anything that has anything to do with his very public service, which he chose to accept, is not private. And should anything from his personal life get mixed up with his public service, then it will no longer have the luxury of being private.
ALmod, you said:
The transcript from the SEC interview was made available by the media in full form and unedited for anyone who wanted to download it. How on earth could that be more balanced and/or fair?
Therein lies the problem, I don’t believe it was “fair” or “balanced” that the transcript from the SEC was “made available by the media in full form and unedited for anyone who wanted to download it”. I believe it to be unfair and unbalanced. If you were facing an investigation and possible trial would you want the transcript made available by the media in full form and unedited for anyone ( including possible jurors) who wanted to download it?
But that’s just it… I’m not a public figure, and my actions do NOT affect the general public. So again, you raise an issue of so-called privacy on what is actually a public matter. Yeah, I’m sure I’d feel different if I was in Langford’s shoes, but that’s something that I failed to consider when I not only accepted the position but also betrayed the public trust.
Most public hearings are just that– public. That includes those of non-public officials. If you’ll take note, most cases do allow transcripts available to the media and/or public unless the judge orders otherwise. But then, Langford would have to actually be charged with something to even face that possibility. Even if he was charged, the public would demand to know what is going on. The release of the transcript of his testimony to the SEC is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary. The unusual and extraordinary cases are the ones where transcripts are NOT made available.
But again, you only raise the question of privacy for a public official. You still haven’t addressed the question you quoted. How on earth is a transcript of Langford’s own words considered an unbalanced report on what happened?
Oh, and one more thing regarding jury selection. I take it you’ve never been called for jury duty. Jurors are screened for a reason and a judge can order them sequestered. However, should there be such a concern from Langford, then that would be all the more reason that he should NOT have a trial in Birmingham. The people of Jefferson County have preformed opinions of him, and he would hardly receive a fair and unbiased ruling. Those outside the state have little reason to be concerned about what is going down in Jefferson County and therefore can offer an unbiased and fair judgment.
ALmod,
Why bother with the cost to taxpayers of a trial by jury in or outside of the State, or the cost of sequestering jurors? You’ve already tried and convicted Langford.
No, no I haven’t. I’m only repeating Langford’s own words and stating his history and making a prediction of future behavior based on past behavior. It really doesn’t take much effort to do.
You, however, have already decided that Langford is capable of doing no wrong. Langford can say that he took favors from lobbyists in exchange for bond deals that squandered taxpayer money and put them millions of dollars further into debt. In fact, he all but did say that. Those are his words in that transcript. Yet you still seem to think that there’s some missing link that we don’t know about, some reason, that will justify it all.
And so, your only defense and/or justification for the actions that Langford himself admits to is to attack me. You’re grasping at straws. If that’s the best you can come up with I’m glad you are not his attorney, and I hope you’re not someone in his inner circle. As bad as I think Langford is for the public he serves, at least I think he deserves better than that.
So why don’t you come up with some real defense on Langford’s behalf besides trying to blame his woes on some suburban stay-at-home mom? Quit blaming the witness on the stand for the criminal having to face the consequences of his own actions.
ALmod, you said:
I’m only repeating Langford’s own words and stating his history and making a prediction of future behavior based on past behavior. It really doesn’t take much effort to do.”
Which is my point exactly.
I really don’t understand how asking you to be fair and balanced has translated into me “deciding that Langford is capable of doing no wrong”.
You said:
Langford can say that he took favors from lobbyists in exchange for bond deals that squandered taxpayer money and put them millions of dollars further into debt. In fact, he all but did say that.”
Did Langford actually ” in fact all but say that” or is that you “spinning” his statement?
You have accused me of trying to justify Langfords actions and of attacking you. I can’t recall a time when I’ve “attacked you” during the course of this discussion. However I do consider this statement by you a very personal attack:
“If that’s the best you can come up with I’m glad you are not his attorney, and I hope you’re not someone in his inner circle. As bad as I think Langford is for the public he serves, at least I think he deserves better than that.”
Please provide me with any statement I made in which I personally attacked you. We may have differing opinions, but I really do try to agree to disagree without resorting to personal attacks and insults.
Let me end this discussion by saying I am not trying to “justify” Langfords “actions” and I am not attempting to provide any “real defense on Langford’s behalf” because as I’ve said countless times before it’s NOT personal with regards to Landford for ME. I would also like to apologize if to you if any opinions expressed by me during the course of this disucssion were an attempt to as you say:
trying to blame his woes on some suburban stay-at-home mom? Quit blaming the witness on the stand for the criminal having to face the consequences of his own actions”
That is not and was not my intention.
Fair and balanced. I gave you Langford’s past deeds and his own words. Not sure how that can be any more fair and balanced. What you are REALLY asking is for me to search and scrape for SOMETHING that will justify his actions. The fact is that there isn’t anything. If there was, we’d know about it by now because Langford would have used it.
Now, if a person slaps you in the face when you say the word “stop,” and this happens three times in a row… It is likely that you can predict to the person next to you, “He’ll slap you in the face if you tell him to stop.” How is that unfair and/or unbalanced?
Now, you asked the following:
“Did Langford actually ” in fact all but say that” or is that you “spinning” his statement?”
Yes, he did. Did you not read the transcript or the findings of the investigation thus far? It’s a big file, so I’m not going to copy and paste the whole thing. I’m not spinning. I’m paraphrasing. Big difference.
“I can’t recall a time when I’ve “attacked you” during the course of this discussion.”
Maybe you should go back and re-read your previous post in this and another discussion. Then you have the testicular fortitude to call my calling you out on it as a personal attack. I do think Langford deserves a better defense than that. If the best you can come up with to justify LARRY’S is to claim that a private citizen who is in no way involved in the investigation has already “tried and convicted” him, then you’re doing a bad job of defending him. Even I can come up with a better defense than that in spite of the evidence by saying he was likely unaware as to what was going on. I doubt that’s the case, but it’s much better an actual defense of Langford than “the media isn’t reporting it right” because at least my defense shows some deniability on his part.
I find it odd that you would take such an observation so personally. Since you are not, or at least claim not to be, a member of Langford’s inner circle or part of his public relations circle, you have no real reason to be concerned over my previous remark. It’s not your job to defend Langford, so if you’re not excelling at it, then it’s no big deal.
And yes, that is exactly what you are doing. You’ve thus far blamed the media and the bloggers and the occasional commenter for getting it so wrong when in fact, they’re just reporting the very things that happened. You seem to be of the mind that these things did not happen. Okay, so then tell us how the evidence is incorrect. The one thing that you have not done is take a look at Langford and his actions and make an assessment based on that– for good or bad. Instead, it’s all the media’s fault or it’s the bloggers’ fault or it’s my fault.
Kathy, I forgot to mention, there are two new articles on this subject. Looks like the Richard Scrushy thing did have a domino effect as was predicted. Here are the links:
Birmingham Weekly
Birmingham News
:::lightbulb:::
Well, that explains what I only half-heard on NPR this morning. Thanks, ALmod.
Let me end this discussion by saying I am not trying to “justify” Langfords “actions” and I am not attempting to provide any “real defense on Langford’s behalf” because as I’ve said countless times before it’s NOT personal with regards to Langford for ME. I would also like to apologize to you if any opinions expressed by me during the course of this disucssion were an attempt to as you say:
“trying to blame his woes on some suburban stay-at-home mom”
Again,that was not and is not my intention nor my desire.