« Downward Spiral | Main | Journalism 101: Just Making Stuff Up »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

My concern is that people are seeing the weak case against Alexander and extrapolating that the case against Thomas and Aubuchon are overreaches as well. I've had discussions on other boards arguing that what Thomas did was wrong and this is not payback for his anti-illegal immigrant policies.

I agree with you in writing that the case against Rachel is inappropriate. I sat in the courtroom and heard the initial opening statement and wondered why certain named participants were not in the line up - those which played a larger role - Mark Goldman?

Greg, I liked you better when you weren't a lawyer.

Based on your comment about Alexander, it seems you admit the bar is using its power to exert political revenge, in addition to playing an ongoing role in how corruption among public officials is prosecuted.

Do voters want a prosecutor constantly looking over his shoulder to see if the bar is displeased? Or do they want a truly independent person, held accountable by the voters just like every other elected official? If not, tell us how an elected prosecutor should go about serving these two very political (and very opposite) masters? That's why conservatives nationally should be interested in this story.

The Bar's targeting of Rachel Alexander...for what? Or, am I supposed to google the case to bring myself up to speed. Sorry, no time for that.

Well, if she is charged with bilking the taxpayers for a salary while acting as Thomas' political mouthpiece then...guilty as charged. The most prolific blogger I have ever witnessed is Rachel Alexander although she has slowed down a bit since leaving the County Attorney's office. So anyway, she left with useful courtroom experience she can put to use in future legal work, right? Right?

I agree 100% - Rachel Alexander is being shafted because of her political beliefs.

This case is clearly venturing into the field of maliciousness against conservatives.

The leftist agitators are even attempting to make Thomas bear the full costs of his defense.

Even conservatives acknowledge that government has a responibility to legally defend employees in government service against claims. Were it otherwise, no sane person would ever work for a government office.

Thomas may have overstepped his bounds, but even as someone who has publicly criticised him on his home turf I would never dare to try to strip his legal right to a county-provided defense of actions he performed in the course of his duties.

The State Bar complaint is a "kitchen sink" assault against the trio, mixing aspects of truth and hyperbole, basically throwing every charge under the sun against the three attorneys. In the case of Thomas and Aubuchon, it is possible that some of the charges have merit, but others clearly don't and are merely an attempt to suffocate the defendents under a morass of charges. It is utterly baffling that Rachel Alexander is being investigated, however, given that she was a rather low ranking attorney in the office, and it was a supervising attorney who signed off on the actual case filing that she is being investigated for - ironically, an attorney who was not charged with anything.

Some media is also attempting to state the arguments of the man behind the Alexander charges - John Gleason - as gospel. Mr. Gleason conveniently ignores the fact that Alexander did NOT file the RICO lawsuit in question. Another attorney in the County Attorney's office actually filed the RICO complaint that the Bar is raking Alexander over the coals for; however, since that attorney is not politically active, he gets a pass. Instead, they choose to dump on someone (Alexander) who wrote pleadings and performed research on SOMEONE ELSE'S SUIT.

I wish the media do some research of its own into the actual charges instead of meekly accepting whatever John Gleason is spoonfeeding them.

A prosecutor is a unique creature under our government. Most lawyers have a duty to look out for their client; a prosecutor has an added responsibility to make sure justice is served. A prosecutor who ignores the "interests of justice" can rightfully be disciplined; and a prosecutor has the tremendous power of the state behind them, so abuses by a prosecutor must be looked at even more carefully than conduct by other attorneys. But, when a political witchhunt goes beyond the decision makers and actually starts targeting support staff like Alexander, it's pretty scary. And for all my previous criticisms of Thomas and Aubuchon, and my agreement that at least some of the charges against those two should be investigated, I am appalled at the "all-out" effort to destroy them rather than to seek the truth. And if those who are attempting to strip their county-financed legal defense prevail, it will send a shockwave to prosecutors all across the country. It will send the message, "If you do something unpopular, and someone sues you, you're on your own." I can't think of a better recipe for political corruption.

I say we hang Ms. Alexander. We need to rid the world of scriveners.

Re: Republic comments yesterday.

"So, does every paper listed in the table suffer from bias?"

Pretty much, I would guess. Here's why. Gannett started their acquisition activity in the 70s. The Republic was one of their last around 2000 or 2001.

Al Neuharth started USA Today in 1982, and it never made a profit for at least the first 10 years, and probably many more. For years, Gannett bled the operating funds from their profitable acquisitions to keep USA Today going, seriously weakening their other papers. Neuharth also bragged openly about how he was going to follow EEO guidelines (quotas) while pushing bright, young, with-it employees into all of their newspapers.

When you use quotas to hire journalism rookies, and under-qualified EEOers, what do you get? A huge supply of mediocre, naive, liberal amateurs throughout your whole organization. The majority of the Gannett/Republic staffs don't even know how biased they are, "because everyone we know thinks this way." The tiny group of conservatives at The Republic have watched this happen for many years. It must be painful for those old-timers.

Gannett's staffing policies, combined with rise of the internet, form a double whammy which will continue to cause their rapid decline.

P.S. Neuharth has a wall full of liberal awards. Not gonna help much now.

P.P.S. Every time you stay in a hotel with a "free" USA Today, which adds a hidden buck to your room rate, you are helping support Gannett. One of their main income sources is their sales to hotels.

As I've said before in the comments on other posts about this brouhaha, it could very well be likely that Thomas used the prosecutor's office as a political weapon AND the county board of supervisors is a cesspool of corruption.

And that duality exists here, too. Thomas could have used his office for political gain, and Rachel could be targeted for political reasons as well. The fact that she is mentioned by name when others up the chain of command are not speaks volumes as to the intent of this inquiry.

Craig D. or should I just call you whom you are... Brett Mecum. All of us in the core conservative movement in this state know that the untold reason Rachel Alexander has been dragged into this whole bar trial is due to you spreading the false & untrue accusations that she was anonymous blogging about the county supervisors ( who by the way had no idea who she was until you started leaving comments all over blogs & the Arizona Republic's web site ), leaving comments everywhere on the internet after anonymous articles. I wonder if Michele Bachmann knows all about your very sordid past?

"Alexander's role in the debacle was low level and of short duration" hence the lesser charge and lesser potential punishment. So let the case run it's course.

Ms. Alexander had no litigation experience to be handling this case. She was chosen to participate in the case because no other attorney in the office, besides Aubuchon, would touch it.
Here job was to be a "political blogger" for Mr. Thomas and she really does not have any legal experience even though she is a lawyer. She should have never have taken on the case. She showed poor judgment and poor legal skills therefore she must be punished by the State Bar.

I swear you need a flowchart to keep track of AZGOP drama...

The comments to this entry are closed.