Saturday, February 16, 2008

So Now What?

A little over 24 hours have passed since Chuck Rosenthal's sudden resignation on Friday. I have to admit that last night, I was still trying to process the meaning of it all on the Big Picture of the State of the CJC.

This morning, I read the articles and the usual blather on the Chronicle blogs. I read all of the candidates reactions, and the reactions of County Officials.

And then I realized, that Rosenthal's resignation yesterday doesn't really change all that much.

So, for the record, the following 10 things remain unchanged by Chuck's departure:

1. Alan Bernstein still isn't running the yarmulke story in the Chronicle.

2. Lloyd Kelley is still a pompous jackass who is pretending to care about his clients when, in fact, he is just trying to usher Clarence Bradford into office. (NOTE: I really liked what attorney John O'Neill said in the Chronicle: "We believe Lloyd Kelley is simply trying to take over public offices that he and his party could never win in a free election." )

3. The usual batch of moronic posts on the Chronicle website will never stop.

4. Pat Lykos still thinks dropping meaningless phrases like "the rule of law" will somehow make her seem qualified to hold the job of DA.

5. Doug Perry is still wearing his trademark hat.

6. Clarence Bradford is still remaining quiet as the Republican candidates attack each other.

7. Jim Leitner still doesn't have the name familiarity that he needs to win the nomination.

8. Kelly Siegler's detractors will still try to link her to the mythical "inner-circle" of Chuck Rosenthal, even though his prescription pain killer revelation seems to indicate he was listening to no one.

9. Kelly Siegler still has the most skill and experience to run the Office (yeah yeah yeah, I'm biased).

10. Crimes are still being committed. Prosecutors are still prosecuting the Defendants. Defense attorneys still defend them. Life goes on.

Looks like the only real difference is that Chuck is now remaining silent on the issue from the comfort of his own home, rather than on the 6th Floor of the CJC.


Anonymous said...

Does Kerry Stevens stay? Boy, it will be interesting to see where that relationship goes.

Mark Bennett said...

I thought Lloyd Kelley's asserting "this wouldn't have happened if I hadn't filed a removal suit" was vile.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Anon 7:11 pm, I don't know what will happen with Kerry. I would guess nothing will happen for the moment.

I couldn't agree more. Lloyd is the stereo-typical sleazy lawyer that makes us all look bad. Too bad road rage isn't a felony and he didn't get his ticket pulled a while back.

PJ said...

I'm sorry, I've never met Lloyd Kelley and know virtually nothing about him (and for all I know he may very well be an asshole as most ambitious people are), but the attacks on him stemming from the Rosenthal fallout are, in my opinion, utterly petty.

What he has done--even if by sheer luck--is expose to public view what some of us always knew the interior of the Harris County DA's office looked like. The notion that Kelley has "take[n] over public offices that he and his party could never win in a free election" is extreme and worth nothing but contempt. A "free election" presumably means one in which the public is informed of what the District Attorney's office looks like. As the Chronicle's comment section reflects (which I usually cannot stand to read), the public is not happy with what it now sees. Rosenthal's departure was not mandated by any authority. It was pressured from the people themselves, based on actual information (imagine that!).

John O'Neill's statement amounts only to an argument that the public should be kept in the dark about what its elected representatives do. This kind of upside-down "democracy" should not be championed but derided as the authoritarianism it is. The next election will in fact be the freest in Harris County history, whatever its result.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

I find it very ironic that you seem to want to mitigate against the bad things said about Lloyd Kelley, and yet you have no such qualms about calling Rob Freyer a racist. And John O'Neill's (whom I have never met) seems to be pretty much on the money for those of us on both sides of the Bar that know the situation.
I don't want to seem rude to you, PJ, but sometimes you might want to give those of us a little credit that we just might know what we're talking about. Especially on the topics of Rob Freyer not being a racist, and Lloyd Kelley most definitely being a jack ass.

PJ said...


I have not made any assertions about (or defenses of) Kelley's character. Kelley is a private actor, i.e., he is not in a position of public trust and responsibility, and I frankly don't care about him at all. (If he ever assumes such a position in the future, you can rest assured all my scrutiny will be on him.)

All I am disputing is the validity of certain accusations related to the Rosenthal incident. Kelley's motivations are irrelevant to O'Neill's preposterous assertion that Rosenthal's resignation was somehow orchestrated from some authority on high. He was pressured out by his own party because his own party understood him to jeopardize its popularity among the electorate, i.e., the people acting "freely."

Think Kelley a jackass all you want, it doesn't bother me. But even still it doesn't make O'Neill's comment remotely rational.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Perhaps if you read the context of O'Neills statement in this article ( you would have a better understanding. Lloyd Kelley is seeming to forget to work on his clients' case in the interest of persuing his political challenges for his buddy Clarence Bradford.
The fact that he isn't a public servant doesn't make him immune from criticism.
Read up on old Lloyd, and you might have a change of heart.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

"his prescription pain killer revelation seems to indicate he was listening to no one."

Except Kelly Siegler's husband, who prescribed them to him.

Nice try hoping to distance her from Rosenthal's "inner circle." Won't work in November, though.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Man, Grits,
You have been pretty hard-core this week. Maybe a change in breakfasts will calm you down a bit.
I still fail to see the relevance that Sam Siegler being Chuck's doctor has on Kelly's election. By that logic, is every patient of Sam's part of Chuck's "inner-circle"?
I think its fine for people to list their criticisms of Kelly if they are ones she earned herself, but lately, all I'm hearing is a bunch of mumbling about inner-circles, and how her husband's actions show things about her?

I don't see how you call those types of allegations anything other than a witch hunt.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Please! The email exchanges make clear their's was more than a Doctor-Patient relationship, as I'm sure Lloyd Kelly will be happy to reveal if your gal is nominated.

It's not my choice of breakfast, but as the attorneys say, "bad facts" that are Siegler's big problem.

However you're missing my overall point in this week's comments, AHCL. Nominating Siegler ensures to a 100% certainty that type of dialogue will continue all through November, and that the nominee will be associated in the public mind with Rosenthal's email scandal. Why support someone who invites it when you have a qualified option?

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Come on Grits, you are playing the guilt-by-association game here. Are you actually advocating screwing over the most qualified candidate in favor of the "acceptable" candidate because of bad press?
Is that the lesson we want to really stand for? Even if you are the best at what you do, if you have bad press, you should quit. Doesn't matter if that press is deserved or not, just quit.
That's not how I was raised.
And I'm pretty sure that's not how Kelly was raised either.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

"Are you actually advocating screwing over the most qualified candidate in favor of the "acceptable" candidate because of bad press?"

No, dude - I'm explaining to you how life works in real-world politics. I'm also saying you were disingenuous to imply Chuck and Sam had only a doctor-patient relationship, which is not true.

Perhaps my background colors my perspective. I was a professional oppo researcher for 13 years, including 68 candidate campaigns, and quite a few in Houston. I think it's possible for Siegler to rehabilitate herself, but she needs to construct a narrative that explains to the public why she's not just a Nancy Grace wannabe from the heart of Rosenthalandia, because that's what the election will be about if she's nominated. The media frenzy has just been too big (and it's not over).

OTOH, nominate Leitner and the election becomes about Clarence Bradford's qualifications, in which case I think the GOP has a much better chance of retaining the post.

The Phantom Bureaucrat said...

Okay, I don't pretend to be an expert political researcher (certainly not repeatedly in this blog as someone has been doing) but let's face it; there aren't a whole lot of Democrats that are going to vote for the GOP candidate of choice, regardless of who that might be (evidence including the recent poll mentioned in another posting). I don't think a lot of GOP supporters are foolish enough to vote for Bradford either so those votes are "a done deal".

In terms of independent voters, the "taint" of the numerous scandals directly attributable to Bradford; including the oft-publicized manpower shortage by the city police, K-Mart, the Crime Lab, his perjury trial, and so many more are not going to impress them much. Whatever childish "guilt by association" BS so heavily pushed by wannabe pundits is bandied about regarding Ms. Siegler, it pales in comparison.

Jim has already shown that he is unable to raise funds in a significant manner and Mr. Perry is just the circus act of the race; another that lacks any ability to make a real run for the spot.