Jim Leitner and the ADAs (Revisited)

Back when all of this election mess first started, I wrote an article, somewhat sentimentally praising Candidate Jim Leitner and the awkward position both he and the Assistant District Attorneys were in. Back then (and doesn't it seem like a lifetime ago?), things were so different.

Jim told the ADAs that he talked to that he had been placed in an awkward position, and that he was trying to help them out. He promised them that he would never support Lykos in the event were he to not make the runoff.

What he said in private, he seemed to back up publicly at the first candidates' forum over at the Spaghetti Warehouse. He told the Republican Women at the luncheon that the elected District Attorney needed to be a trial lawyer or else the Assistant District Attorneys would never respect or follow them. It was very clear that he advocated either himself or Kelly for the job.

As the campaign went on, conflicting word started coming from the trail. People attending some of the events were coming back with the information that Jim was telling people that he would endorse Lykos if he didn't make the run off.

"Not so!" cried Candidate Leitner when he would speak to the ADAs as he made the rounds of court dockets. Even the infamous Bubba Joe 6 Pack (later strongly suspected to be Clint Greenwood) denied the Lykos endorsement rumors at Mark Bennett's blog, stating:

"Leitner did not say that, either publicly or privately."

Assistant District Attorneys were actually getting into heated arguments with each other over Leitner's true intentions. Many, whom he had given his word to that he would never endorse her, said whoever was making up such B.S. stories about poor Jim was just wrong. Others said they just didn't know what Jim was really up to. Jim endorsed Lykos in 2000, they told people. They are friends. He's going to do it again.

ADAs told Jim that they would lose their jobs under Lykos. She was mean. She was power-hungry. He would assure them that he didn't have any intention of endorsing her.

Some of the ADAs, Jim told that he wouldn't have even entered the race if he had known that Kelly was going to run. He acted like he was being virtually "forced to run" and it wasn't what he wanted, since Kelly was now in the race, and could capably look after the Office.

On March 5th, the day after the election, Jim Leitner publicly announced he was "voting" for Lykos. Not endorsing her, he justified to nobody but himself, "endorsing is telling people who to vote for."

The prosecutors who had defended him felt like fools.

Tonight, Jim's complete turn-around has come full-circle, as his voice is on the robo-calls out endorsing Lykos. According to Alan Bernstein's blog, Jim even says he's going to be working polling locations for her.

The words to express my disappointment in Jim fail me, now. Part of it is because of how highly I formerly thought of Jim.

Don't get me wrong and say that I'm just having sour grapes because he endorsed the opponent of the person I want to win. It's not just that.

It's the lying he told the ADAs.
It's the fact that he knows how many of the ADAs that considered him to be their friend will lose their jobs - people with families.

I'm sure that Mark Bennett will blast me with another one of his posts about how anonymous bloggers are cowards again, but I don't care. Jim did "put himself out there" when he ran for D.A., and he's "putting himself out there" again by doing public endorsements of the absolutely least qualified candidate for the Office.

And I would say all of this to Jim's face, actually.

But right now, I couldn't even look at him


hcresident said…
Obvioulsy a requirement to enter the Lykos camp is that you have to believe in lying as a way of life. I have held my tongue when referencing Leitner's religous beliefs, but I can't do it anymore. He has truly sold his soul to the devil. He personally told me that he wished he had been able to exit the race after Kelly entered. Now I know he is not only capable of lying with a smile on his face, but he is more than willing to do it.
Anonymous said…
What's the big deal?

Siegler is supported by all of the police agencies and by her co-workers.

Lycos picks up an endorsement from a defense attorney and she suddenly thinks she's got this wrapped up?

I may be old school, but I'd rather have a DA that the cops backed rather than one that the defense attorney backed.

Especially a defense attorney who seems to be a pretty big liar. It's no wonder that he and Lie-Cos found each other.
Go Kelly! Go!
Anonymous said…
The words Lykos, Lowry, Leitner, and Liar all start with L.

Anonymous said…
LIEtner is a fraud and always has been. He lied to many people in the courthouse and now those who were believers should finally realize. LIEtner has a deal with Lykos to be first asst. He says he wouldn't want the job and that it would be a pay cut. LIEtner makes less money than you think. No overhead and insurance are very intriguing to him and it should be clear that everything he has done from the beginning has been about HIM. Selfish jerk.
Murray Newman said…
Leitner as 1st Assistant? I had heard from several people it was going to be Robert Pelton. I heard Pelton was already scoping out Grand Jury to see how it was run.

Now, surely, Lykos wouldn't have lied to two people and told them BOTH that they were getting the 1st Assistant job? Not sweet little old Pat.
Scott C. Pope said…
Politics, sadly, tends to bring out the worst in people, and I guess Leitner is no exception.

There's going to be a lot of political debris and roadkill lying around after Tuesday when Kelly wins, and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of thugs.
Ron in Houston said…
It puzzles me that anyone who really knows Lykos could support her.

Leitner is first a politician. It must be politically expedient for him to endorse Lykos.

Sounds like a deal with the devil to me.
Anonymous said…
Leitner told me, after Kelly put her name in, that he would "undo all of this if he could." He said that he understood that our jobs were the most important thing and that he knew Kelly should win. I was floored when I saw his statement that he would "vote" for Lykos.
Anonymous said…
What some people reading these comments may not understand, is that Leitner WAS respected and he used that reputation to mislead and manipulate defense attorneys (for money) and prosecutors. That is the only reason people care about his "endorsement." It isn't because we think it will make a difference because it won't. His name carries as much weight as Terry Lowry's name does. And experts will tell you that having the third place guy call and tell voters who to vote for doesn't work.

This is more personal for the many at the CJC he lied to. It makes you wonder if he is telling the truth when he represents his clients.
Anonymous said…
What a bunch of pathetic babies you all are! As a friend of Jim's, I know for a fact you guys are posting lies about him. What do you gain from doing that? I haven't read this website since Jim was in the race and I thought it was interesting and had some merit, but now I'm back and shocked at what I'm reading. It's pathetic! It's time to grow up. God, you're worse than a hen party of retired old ladies.

Popular posts from this blog

Boss Ogg's Slate

Scapegoating the Judges

The "Genius and Miraculous" District Attorneys' Office