On The John Ford Trial

(Photo: CA)

UPDATED (7/11): More people could be charged in the connection to the John Ford case.

And Ford did not disclose just how much income that he was making from consulting.

At what point, will his child support issues come into play since disclosing that income would have impacted how much he would have had to pay Tamara Mitchell-Ford? Will she ever make it to the witness stand?

From Wednesday.


UPDATE (7/9): Tuesday saw a relative stream of executives explain their relationships with John Ford in a manner than might prove damaging in the jury's eyes.

(Perrusquia's recap. Why is Perrusquia even in Nashville, where bureau chief Richard Locker has trial coverage well in hand? It would seem like Perrusquia would be better utilized if he broadened his stories to handle grander questions raised by the testimony or the trial itself--much like his story about the misperception that the trial is focused on bribery allegations when it's not.)

UPDATE (9:30PM): Mr. 15 percent?

It seems like Ford's bravado is going to get him in trouble again but it would be interesting to see how Forba--so intent on getting a Memphis clinic--went about securing the support of the majority of the Memphis delegation. Might be instructive. (Fox13.)

UPDATE (7/7): The John Ford Trial resumes this morning.

As Commercial Appeal reporter Marc Perrusquia points out, there is confusion about the nature of the trial: is this a trial about bribery or not? Not.

(It's really the first Perrusquia article that somewhat objectively demonstrates how thin and intentionally-confusing the case is against Ford. I know, one would think the CA would have reported this use of smoke and mirrors from the beginning. Sigh.)

Two excerpts:

Most people understand bribery: A public official illegally accepts money in return for official actions and influence.

Instead, Ford, 66, is charged with two counts of wire fraud and fours counts of concealing material facts in connection with payments he received from OmniCare and another contractor, Doral Dental.

Ford isn't accused of cheating the public out of money, but of committing fraud that denied constituents their intangible right to honest services.

...

Yet prosecutors have proven resourceful in recent corruption probes across Tennessee and the nation.

Ford is just one in a series of officials to be charged with honest service wire fraud, a criminal charge akin to civil laws governing fiduciaries such as the trustee of an estate or the manager of a mutual fund. A fiduciary owes a duty of straightforward, un-conflicted service to investors, and the honest services statute holds that elected officials must do the same for constituents.

And, the maximum penalty for wire fraud -- 20 years -- is greater than that for bribery, 10 years.

Law professor Rychlak said the crucial point in the trial will come when testimony ends and U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell instructs the jury about the law and what boundaries to consider in reaching a verdict.

"They have to figure it out," he said

It's the resourcefulness of prosecutors that should bother you. It's akin to creative accounting or poetic wordplay that leaves everything up for interpretation.

For example, like prosecuting strip club owner Ralph Lunati for "conspiracy to use a facility of interstate commerce to promote prostitution." In other words, Lunati got pinched for having an ATM in his club. That's how thin the slices of "justice" are.

But I digress.

The point is that the feds have the ability and the will to fashion any facts or information into an alleged criminal offense. And while the feds won't dissuade jurors from disliking Ford or noting that he took money, they are surely dependent upon such irrelevancy to indirectly make their case.

I'm of the belief that the public dislikes being fooled by its own government. That's just me, though.

That's why it's up to the media to inform the public on strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution. It's never too late.

ON ANOTHER NOTE: Perrusquia notes the inaccuracy of other media reports, but how many of those outlets will run a correction/clarification to fix their errors? Or better yet, at this point, after the misperceptions have been repeatedly drilled into the psyche, will it matter--to the public or the media outlet?

UPDATE (7/4): Gov. Phil Bredesen testified yesterday, and Fox13's Les Smith said his testimony was neither good or bad for Ford because Bredesen, under cross examination, admitted he didn't know whether Ford had to disclose his business ties when he lobbied him on behalf of Omnicare.

The Commercial Appeal, whose reporting arguably kicked off the fed's interest in Ford's TennCare work, saw things a bit different.

WMC's Janice Broach asked Ford's defense attorney about whether it's too early to make a deal with prosecutors.

What kind of question is that? It's a question that underscores the belief that Ford is going to lose.

WREG: Imagination.

ORIGINAL POST (7/3): The latest trial against former state Sen. John Ford is underway in Nashville.

The prosecutorial storyline is relatively unchanged. The argument is that Ford sold his influence to companies and secretly advocated on their behalf, yielding some lucrative contracts for these clients.

To me, it's suspect prosecution, one overly dependent upon jurors' personal opinions about Ford and his penchant for arrogance in order to believe that he is capable of pulling off something that appears to be unethical. Yet, ethics is a thin tightrope.

I'm just sayin, how much influence did Ford really have? That's what I'm having trouble with. Did he alone have the power to say who would receive what and when in terms of state legislation?

In my mind, there were plenty of other people who had a role in determining whether Doral Dental and Omnicare received TennCare contracts.

Was Ford the only one hired as a consultant? The scope of the prosecution seems too narrow.

But I digress.

The feds seem to be missing the real issue. I mean, if they really wanted to go after Ford, then they should perhaps prosecute him for pushing legislation that aimed to shield him from paying child support.

That's a real crime.

Fox13.