Friday, March 21, 2008

Mark Bennett's Political Analysis

Do any of you remember the Stephen King book "Christine"? An average high school kid buys a '57 Plymouth Fury that is possessed, and suddenly his behavior starts changing? He becomes darker. More angry. More morose. There's lots of other stuff in the book, but that was one of the side affects mentioned in the novel.

I can't help but be reminded of "Christine" after seeing Mark Bennett's change in behavior since he got his website powered by a new blogging company.

He's darker. More angry. More morose.

Mark has dropped his happy, go-lucky, anarchist-may-care attitude toward the election that he had prior to the new website design, and has been coming out pretty hard-core against Kelly Siegler and those who would support her. The tone of the banter between us has gotten much more testy.

In his March 19th article, entitled "Three Opinions" he seeks to debunk the "myth" that "no one at the courthouse" supports Pat Lykos.

Not that there's anything wrong with him debunking the myth, but his tone in it is a bit indignant. He cites five people polled, and describes them generally, and lists that 4-1 that they support Lykos over Kelly. He acknowledges it isn't scientific.

Where he starts getting mean is in the comments.
-he argues that Kelly Siegler "bought" Steven Hotze's support.
-he states he thinks its "fair" for Kelly to pay for Chuck's sins (obviously not thinking that "mere presence" applies when it comes to politics).
-he notes that posters on his website are very savvy, except for those that come to him from this website, citing them as being "a bit dim". (Now, granted, he and Anon C got into a nasty little war of words during the comments, so I can understand him being angry about that).
-and he insinuates that the prosecutors support Kelly solely based on fear of losing their jobs.

Mark seems to be channeling his frustration that he feels towards the Office (in general) and pushing it all onto Kelly. Mark is many, many things, but he's certainly no dummy.

Mark can have gripes with Kelly over the bench warrant issue that he also posted at length on. But I fail to see how he can equate that to the multitude of things that Lykos has done at the expense of honesty, judicial temperament, and Civil Rights.

Did Kelly offend the Lakewood Church congregation? Yes. And she apologized and has subsequently eaten large amount of crow over it.
Did Kelly imprison a group of TSU students who had done nothing wrong? No, but Lykos sure did.

Did Kelly use the term "jew" as verb? Yes, and she apologized for it back in the 1980s when it originally happened. She was even commended by Mark for an apology going a long way.
Did she refuse to let a man testify while wearing a yarmulke? Nope. Again, that was Lykos.

Did Kelly lie under oath during a Motion to Recuse hearing? Um, no.
Did Lykos lie under oath during a Motion to Recuse hearing? She sure as (scatological term) did.

Did Kelly ever violate a Defendant's right to an attorney? Nope.
Did Lykos ever violate a Defendant's right to an attorney? Yep. She revoked his probation and sent him to jail with no hearing, too.

Did Lykos ever treat violent offenders as if what they had done was no big deal? Yep, and it got two Louisiana cops shot in the process.
Did Kelly ever treat violent offenders as if what they had done was no big deal?
If you gotta ask that question, then you really don't know Kelly Siegler.

Mark, I know you think that ADAs live in a culture of arrogance. But don't non-lawyers say that about all attorneys? I know that you butt heads with prosecutors on a daily basis and that plenty (if not all) of them get aggravating. I know you disagree with some of the methodology that prosecutors (including Kelly) exercise sometimes.

But do you really find Lykos and Kelly to be on the same page when it comes to who offends you?

I know it probably offends every last one of your ACLU sensibilities to say it, but a prosecutor is by far and away the most qualified to hold this job in this race.

One last thing, and then I'll go back to reading "Christine".

The prosecutors in the D.A.'s Office who support Kelly Siegler don't do it out of some "fear of losing their jobs". They do it because Kelly is the best trial lawyer that they've ever seen. They've watched her passion for the job. Her skill at the job.

They want to be as talented as her. They want the respect that she has earned from her fellow prosecutors from around the country.

The prosecutors want Kelly to be their leader, because they want to follow her. We all have our mentors and people we look up to, Mark. It shouldn't be too much of a stretch of the imagination for you to see that Kelly is that mentor to a great many prosecutors.

Whatever else you want to write is fair game, Mark, but if I were you, I'd let the prosecutors speak for themselves when it comes to why they support Kelly Siegler.


Anonymous said...

"live in a culture of arrogance. But don't non-lawyers say that about all attorneys?"

YES, YES, and YES. You and Mark kind of deserve each other. But he's obviously being manipulated by a double D if he's changing his tone this much.

anonymous c said...

Excellent post, AHCL!

And, re: our little war of words, I’ve just finally lost all patience with Mark. We’ve debated on multiple occasions throughout the weeks and I think that it’s pretty clear that I disagree with him in almost every possible way.

I probably shouldn’t have called him “a snake in the grass”, but, the thing is, I really feel that way. He is no friend to the DA’s office or to people who vociferously disagree with his pontifications from on high.

That’d be totally fine, of course, if he didn’t always pretend to be so neutral. If you’re going to be neutral, be neutral. Don’t attempt to undermine things with whipped cream and a cherry on top.

Mark has been subtly campaigning against Kelly from the very beginning.

And, AHCL, I am so glad that you pointed out his wildly misguided implication that the ADAs are only supporting Kelly because they’re afraid for their jobs. The insinuation is not only wrong, but a frickin’ insult to a strong, competent and intelligent woman like Kelly Siegler, as well as to the ADAs who bust their a** for Harris County daily!

Kelly is a woman who has an amazingly accomplished and very nearly unblemished career and is a true inspiration to so many people…both ADAs and “civilians” alike. She has absolutely earned the respect afforded her. She’s a real hero.

And Mark? Your last comment to me (“I’ll consider permitting you to comment here again”) made me laugh out loud. Lord! The ego!

Go, Kelly, go!

Mark Bennett said...

He's darker. More angry. More morose.

I'm Batman.

Tell your friends.

Michael said...

Living here in Waterloo (with our own DA primary soap opera playing out over what Democrat will replace Ronnie Earle, who's retiring after being the Travis County DA for 128 years), I have less personal knowledge about what's going on in the HCDA's office than any of you, obviously. That being said, my guess as to why the ADAs support Siegler is not that she's gonna fire them NOR that she's a great DA (though she may be, or they may think she is). I think it's more likely they're supporting her because she's (1) a known quantity, and (2) a member of the club already.

jigmeister said...

Didn't you know Michael, all HCDA's wear funny hats and have secret handshakes.

I like Mark, though I don't think I ever met him when I was with the office. He reminds me of my sister, whines and argues for the sake of argument.

He really doesn't believe that Lykos would be a better DA, but realizes that she would throw the system into real quagmire. That ultimately would help the defense bar. Just think, if the DA wars with the existing judges (that could happen with Lykos), and the ADA's in the trenches are on the defensive in the courtroom, the defense community will gain an upper hand. Why shouldn't he promote that. So guys, just walk a mile in his shoes. The psychology ain't that hard to understand.

I would be surprised if Mark even denies it.

Mark Bennett said...


I have said a lot more nice things about Kelly, whom I like personally (though not as a DA) than about Pat, whom I neither know personally nor like as a DA. When our host here has had a particularly interesting anti-Lykos post, I've linked to it.

In other words, I'm not promoting Lykos.

I know it must seem otherwise to those beating the drum for Siegler -- especially those who find themselves unexpectedly anxious for their jobs -- but just because I'm not with them doesn't mean I'm against them. There are shades of grey (nuances?) here.

Anonymous said...

Bennett seems to press the hot buttons of a lot of people here but at least he seems to understand most of the issues brought up. I don't pretend to be a lawyer or an insider but I've been a voter for a very long time and his comments regarding the candidates have persuaded me to get off my behind and vote for Siegler in a few weeks time.

Ms. Lykos has done what the Chronicle hoped for and poisoned the well enough to get Bradford elected. As poor a DA as he will make, the backlash will certainly reinvigorate the cries for heads to roll and a get tough on crime attitude to rise from the ashes. I doubt many of the assistant DA's will quit under his reign or that he will fire them, he left the people in charge of the crime lab alone for years after the problems were found out, put incompetent people in positions where he knew they'd inflict great harm, and allowed certain community activists a voice against all reason. That's the kind of person the HCDA office needs for a few years to wise them up.

Then Siegler can save the day in the next election when the people are so fed up with all the scandals expected to occur. So go with Mark's cries to let anarchy reign free in the short term.

Ron in Houston said...


I'm going to take you to task for always descending into this "us" versus "them" mentality.

I think the main thrust of Mark's post was to refute the premise that no one down at the criminal law center supports Lykos.

Personally I can see that Seigler has the best resume in the DA's race. My concern is her attitude about being DA. Hopefully Chuck's implosion will help her possibly revise her attitude.


Didn't you know Michael, all HCDA's wear funny hats and have secret handshakes

I knew it. Just don't tell me about the hazing rituals.


but just because I'm not with them doesn't mean I'm against them. There are shades of grey (nuances?) here

It seems that a lot of ADA's suffer from not being able to see grey. Besides black and white is so much more intellectually simple.

CJ Social Worker said...

Whoever people decide to vote for, I hope they can transcend the “all or nothing” thinking. In other words, if someone does something bad, that doesn’t mean they are a bad person.

I think we should look for patterns of behavior. What has a person mostly done? What has been the theme of her or his practice? We all do things we wish we could do over. That lapse in judgment shouldn’t define who we are.

Murray Newman said...

Awwww, Dad, he started it.

And Ron, I'm really disappointed in you. The first commenter talked about Mark being persuaded by Double D's. I can almost always count on you for a gross-out Lykos joke with something like that.

Come on, Man.

Anonymous said...

AHCL, I was actually thinking about some defense lawyer who's last name sounds like the French word for war when I said "double D."

Jokes about Pat's anatomy? Please no.

Then again, we did have Hillary's pastor in Harlem saying that Obama's campaign was launched by a pair of Double D's, so maybe there's something there.

jigmeister said...

Didn't you know Ron. To get into the DA's office you have to go through an initiation? Low crawl under barbed wire through a mine field while under fire from a 50 cal. After that, there is the tear gas shed. All top Lt's have to go through that. Of course to get promoted to corporal, you have to survive the vodka shot ritual. God I hated that.

Murray Newman said...

Anon 12:49,
Now I get it. That one went totally over my head. Apparently, it went over my head because my mind was in the gutter. Ewww.

Anonymous said...

I know some that support each candidate residing in the DA's office. Their reasoning is different, vastly different at that, but there is clearly a lot more supporting Kelly. I took Mark's comments in the spirit of his semi-comical manner he conducts himself online. Jim was such a letdown upon getting the boot yet again that it threw a few of us off; Mark's darker side yet to truly emerge from what I've seen.

If the informal buzz surrounding the runoff is any indication, Kelly will take it by a respectful amount. She's been taking her message out across the county and it's paying off handsomely. The tactics of her opponent/her supporters with the campaign signs someone else mentioned earlier is more widespread than I had heard, even some of Lykos' supporters admitting there could be a backlash to it (I know a few people disgusted by the practice that are told me they will either refrain from voting for Lykos again unless she demands a stop to it or they will sit this one out and not vote at all; I have two weeks to convince them an even better message being to vote for Kelly).

But Mark's lack of comfort in Kelly's way of doing things probably pales compared to what he thinks of Lykos (he's smarter than he pretends to be by most accounts).

Murray Newman said...

I really wish you would get a log in idea, so I can tell it's you when you first post. You've got such a great posting name.

Mark Bennett said...

I deny vehemently that I'm any smarter than I pretend to be.

Anonymous said...

I would like to add fact to the Hotze endorsement discussion. My spouse ran for an elected position and was endorsed by Hotze. My spouse never gave any money to Hotze at the time of the endorsement nor was asked by Hotze to give money. And never given money to Hotze in the past or since.

Mark Bennett said...

1816, since you're anonymous and we therefore can't assess your credibility, identify your spouse or confirm or refute your account, it's not much of a "fact."

Murray Newman said...

Mark Dwayne Bennett,
You be nice to my commenters.

Anonymous said...

Mark, I know you dislike anonymous commentators but until the reality changes where retaliation for public comments is not a factor, many of us value our livelihoods enough to shrug our shoulders at people like yourself that get to sit on a lofty perch.

As far as the general Hotze endorsements are concerned, they are not all bought and paid for. He looks for certain things in a candidate's platform and background before giving the nod. If a candidate is willing to pay, that definitely speeds things up or pushes the thumb on the scale a little bit but he does not outright "sell" endorsements as some suggest. You can call him for examples that are both verifiable and credible if you like; he seems like a decent guy (even when I disagree with his picks).

AHCL, I'm still working on getting this thing to accept my tag more readily, please bear with me. :)

Anonymous said...

The current ADA's don't necessarily want Kelly as their DA because they think she's their hero or even the best suited person for the job. They probably think she's the lesser of the three evils, Lykos, Kelly and Bradford. The bottom line is that the ADA's fear change. They don't necessarily like Kelly but they think they'll experience the least amount of change with her as DA. Which goes back to the argument that Kelly is a chip off the Rosenthal block. Whether she is or not, if she's elected, we'll see. I certainly don't speak for all the ADA's, but I've spoken to a "bunch" and the ones I have spoken to know that Kelly is a great prosecutor but she sucks as a boss.

Anonymous said...

JAGJO writes:

Bennett - needs to give the facts to support his comment that Kelly paid Hotze for his endorsement.

There have been two other posts commenting about this and Mark has failed to yet back up his statement.

Murray Newman said...

Anon 11:54,
There is probably something to be said for the fact that ONE of the reasons the ADAs want Kelly is because they want someone from inside the Office, but I don't think that is anywhere near the controling factor.

There are several other factors that I would rank ahead of that, one of which being the fact that Lykos and Bradford aren't qualified. There may have been some ADAs that supported Leitner when he was in the race, because he at least had the requisite qualifications, but I don't know of ONE SINGLE ADA that supports Pat Lykos (or Bradford for that matter).

Kelly is also the Office's best prosecutor and she knows what it means to be a trial lawyer. Having someone to lead you that understands the job that you do is priceless.

anonymous c said...

I thoroughly agree, JagJo!

What about it, Mark?

Let’s let your five questions be the guide!

Tell us ALL about how Kelly bought the Hotze endorsement.

Be sure to be precise. We know how unreliable and suspect this internet stuff can be!

Mark Bennett said...


It's no more than an educated guess. You really should read Defending People -- as I wrote in my there, that's the way Hotze is reputed to operate, and I know two candidates who were asked to make contributions as preconditions to endorsements. That, and the suspect timing of the endorsement are all I got.

Well, those things and the fact that I wrote to a truthtelling insider, someone in a position to know or find out, someone who posts here regularly (feel free to jump in), describing Hotze's M.O. and asking, "Do you know that there was no such quid pro quo involved in his endorsement of Kelly?"; he/she replied, "I'm familiar with how it works, but it works the same for United Republicans who endorsed Lykos." Which seemed to me to be a pretty strong indicator that the conventional wisdom holds true in this instance.

Believe the endorsement was paid for or don't believe it, your choice. It won't affect my life. With all due respect to 1816's putative spouse, I'd hate to think that Kelly was the Chosen One of the Harris County Theocratic Party. I hope that she has already paid in full for that endorsement, rather than owing Hotze a future favor to be announced.

Anonymous said...

JAGJO writes:

Good Morning, Bennett.. you must have some amazing calf muscles and awesome leg definition... with all the back peddling you do here.

You are once again, back peddling.
Of course, I reviewed what you wrote regarding your statement that Siegler paid for Hotze's endorsement. And found no where in your statement the words "probably, possibly or educated guess". What I found was the following and I quote you directly from 3-18-08 @9:16pm in response to post made by AHCL on your blog:

"Further, I hated to see Kelly buying Hotze’s support. That shifted me away from her a bit — ideally, Harris County elections will not be decided by Dr. Hotze’s bought endorsement anymore. I hope that we find in November that that’s a thing of the past."

That statement was made as-a matter-of-fact with no air of suspicion.The statement was made implying you knew firsthand. And, in true defense fashion you concluded your ending statement that contradicts your "educated guess" stance in saying that you hope Kelly has already paid in full as to not have to owing Hotze a future favor to be announced.

(yawn).. you have become so predictable to me.

Now, we both know that you are not associated with Dr. Hotze or his PAC and do not ascribe to the GOP beliefs. I can not dispute that you were told by two candidates that they were asked for contributions; just as you can not dispute that I am telling you that I know more than two that were NOT asked to make contributions, did not make contributions of any form or fashion.They were sought out by Hotze and endorsed with no monetary precondition or post condition arrangement. The candidates that I speak of ran within the last 4yrs to present. When were you told this by these two candidates that you mention? Sour grapes will make all kinds of statements as part of the political game playing.

You also included a statement about the United Republicans requiring monetary contributions from candidates of which you also did not offer proof and based it on hearsay. I personally know that this is also NOT true. On occassion, the two groups both have endorsed the same candidate within the same race.

I am no stranger to this subject matter and there are candidates out there that do offer up contributions for various reasons to an array of PAC's, some are pure political defense statedgy moves, others are to obtain an affordable means to mass advertising. Several conservative publications make no bones about being paid for their endorsement. ( ie., TX Conservative Review, The LinkLetter) My knowlege in these matters does not imply that I support the ideology of these particular groups nor discount that I don't.

The larger actionary PAC's have fund raisers, large paid membership bases and heavy weight corporate contributors that have long since replaced candidate contributions.

One of the first basic elementary lessons taught in law is do not assume. Second, never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to. lol

Of course, you want to engage me and have me trot over to your blog but in the same respect, you will discredit anything I write, no matter what view point, using my annon status as your trump card.

Due to this post being lengthy,I am going to post a piece I stumbled across that ran in yesterday's chron blog in regard to this subject matter.

Anonymous said...

JAGJO writes:

This is the follow up to my above post regarding Hotze and candidates (not) making monetary contributions to his PAC.
This is taken from the infamous Chroncle blog and written by AHCL's favorite blogger, Mr Bernstein :-)
on Monday, March 24th, 2008.
I am showing it in it's entirety so as no question can be made to legitimacy or derived context. And to help support my annon claim that candidates are not paying for his endorsements via information given by a well "known" blogger.

Re-positioning in the congressional race

Dr. Steven Hotze, who sends out his endorsement list under the nom-de-guerre Conservative Republicans of Harris County, backed state Rep. Robert Talton in the March 4 primary for the 22nd Congressional District. But Talton placed fourth out of 10 in the contest for the GOP nomination to take on U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Stafford.

Now Hotze is backing former Senate aide Pete Olson in the April 8 runoff against dermatologist Shelley Sekula Gibbs.

We figure that in the runoff election, when turnout will droop from March 4 levels down to the hardiest and perhaps most conservative voters, an endorsement from Hotze, the longtime conservative activist, may be worth more than it was for Talton. On the other hand the Harris County part of the district is smaller than the Fort Bend part, where Team Hotze is less well known.

Illegal immigration is a huge issue in the race, and Hotze recently came out in favor of allowing illegal workers to stay in the United States so they can earn citizenship. This is not what is advocated by Olson, whom Hotze calls a conservative leader. But those looking for a perfect match may not be able to find one in this life.

>>>>In past elections, candidates backed by Hotze gave money to his political group, supposedly to help the spread word of the endorsement. Opponents called this a form of payola. This time Conservative Republicans of Harris County has gotten its money from business men and women, according to state records that run through February.

The biggest contributor? Local homebuilder Bob Perry, $15,000. He is one of the nation's largest contributors of money to GOP causes.

Posted by Alan Bernstein at 09:44 AM in District 22 | Comments

Mark Bennett said...

Wow, jagjo. So much of your energy here put into a comment on an entirely different blog. And apparently without even reading the post following up on it.

It doesn't hurt my feelings that you know who I am and don't find me credible. Don't let it hurt yours that I don't know who you are and don't find you credible.

It could very well be that the conventional wisdom about Hotze was wrong all along. It could also very well be that it was once correct, but that he has changed his M.O. The only reason I've been given to believe that might be the case is Bernstein's blog post of 3/24 (after the comment that you're fixated on).

Before following up on the comment with an actual post, I inquired of someone whom you would find credible on the subject. That truthful person who I believed would know is the one who made the comment about the United Republicans, which group I had never even heard of. Maybe that person will jump in here. If not, I've said all I will say.

Carry on. You know where to find me.

Anonymous said...

"Did Kelly imprison a group of TSU students who had done nothing wrong?"

"Did Lykos ever violate a Defendant's right to an attorney?"

"Did Lykos ever treat violent offenders as if what they had done was no big deal?"

These comparisons are illogical and pointless. You’re not comparing apples to apples here. Siegler is a prosecutor and Lykos is a judge. Siegler has never issued warrants for anyone’s arrest or violated a defendant’s right to an attorney because she’s not been in a position to do so. A prosecutor’s job is to convict so it’s rare that one would have to answer for treating violent offenders like what they did was no big deal.

You seemed scorned that Mark Bennett would purport to know why prosecutors were supporting Siegler. But then you proceed to declare with staunch confidence that prosecutors support her because they want to grow up to be just like her. You back this assertion up with three paragraphs of your own opinions which actually make me wonder if you are in fact Kelly Siegler herself. “They do it because Kelly is the best trial lawyer that they've ever seen.” Wow. There are over 250 prosecutors at the D.A.’s office. How is it that you know what they’re all thinking? Or maybe you’re just referring to your own circle of friends and colleagues?

I’m not an attorney nor do I have any legal expertise. I live in Houston and follow politics. I do not really like any of the candidates for District Attorney. I dislike Siegler and Lykos more than I dislike Bradford. I admit there is some validity to the argument that a prosecutor or judge should take office but I also think there is validity to the argument that someone who has managed a Houston public agency should take office. They have all committed indiscretions but the two ladies seem to have character flaws that make them suck as people.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:12, I'm not a lawyer either but I also follow politics, I venture to say better than some paid "experts" that allow their wishful thinking to overtake their common sense. The point of those comparisons is more important than you appear to realize and this is why:

If someone abuses their position, any position, it goes to displaying their character and judgment. In the case of Pat Lykos, she abused her position on the bench and it impacted the Constitutional Rights of those before her. Even leaving out the long lunches, trollish behavior, and generic character flaws so many have pointed out, each of the aforementioned examples provides insight as to where her mind is at.

It is also fair to look at what happened during Bradford's reign in charge of HPD. We could discuss the merits of the K-Mart Raid, the Pedro Oregon Shooting, the Crime Lab, or dozens of other scandals that he had oversite responsibilities on, few of which might be directly linked to duties as an elected DA but all of which impact on how he does business and controls those underneath him.

A DA, on the other hand, has other ways that they can abuse their position. The difference is that in most of those cases, a judge will get to rule on the matter if it is during a trial, the voters get to rule when it comes election time. Having seen a whole lot of smoke but no fire from baseless accusations in the last month regarding ADA Siegler, it seems that some people are incredibly desperate to keep her out of office or to promote Lykos without the slightest remorse that they are ignoring far worse transgressions then verbiage used twenty years ago, instructing timid law students to seize the day, and other matters.

Much of the problem for these people is that Ms. Siegler did not hold elective office and therefore has little record of what she did to help fix things or mitigate the worse consequences of poor judgment on the part of her boss, Chuck Rosenthal. Blaming her because another ADA did something is even worse but look around and you'll see scores of trolls doing this all over the internet.

As a growing number of people have mentioned, vote as you see fit and argue for one candidate or another but at least apply a modicum of common sense when you do all of these things. I disagree with Mark's comments as often as not and find some of his arguments...interesting at best but at least he's in the same ballpark much of the time (ducking). And yes, it is my understanding that at least a couple ADA's support Bradford while a few more support Lykos for their own reasons (all off the record with attendant plausible deniability at that).

anonymous c said...


You should add a sixth point to your “accuracy” list.

6. If (1), (2), (3), (4) And (5) don’t apply, then does the person making the assertion tell the doubter that they can just believe it or not? Does he/she tell them that it’s their choice? Does he/she add “It won’t affect my life” to further punctuate the point? Does he/she end with “you know where to find me”?

JagJo has provided “indicia of reliability” for his information.

You have provided nothing but a supposed “credible” source who has yet to “jump in here”.

Again, you said “I hated to see Kelly buying Hotze’s support” and, yet, you have zero back up for that inflammatory statement.

According to your very own criterion for assessing the accuracy of information on the web, you are dishing out some not just thin, but utterly inedible gruel.

Murray Newman said...

Anon 12:12, I couldn't disagree with you more. Potentially, a prosecutor very well COULD issue an illegal warrant, violate a Defendant's right to an attorney, AND treat a violent offender as what they had done was no big deal, so I'm afraid it is YOUR argument that is illogical.

And, no, I'm not Kelly Siegler. She doesn't have the luxury of time to run a blog, and she has never added any input to what I write.

I do have a large number of both prosecutors and defense attorneys that I'm proud to call my "circle of friends". The prosecutors that I call my friends are being accurately described in my posts. Granted, I don't speak for all 250 of them, but I think I'm correctly characterizing the vast majority of them.

Sure, there may be some that support Lykos or Bradford for their own reasons. I would submit to you that more are just remaining silent, because Lykos' reputation precedes her, and they are scared to death that they will be fired for supporting Kelly.

And knowing Lykos, that fear is well placed.

Thankfully, people can vote in private.

Episode Seven: The Voters Awaken - A One Act -Sci-Fi Play

SCENE:  The Death Star orbits over Downtown Houston. [INTERIOR] The Imperial Council Chambers. EMPRESS OGG sits at the head of a long table ...