The rejection of Trent Lott by Republican commentators and intellectuals raised the welcome possibility that there were real men and women--not just nudge-nudge-wink-wink panderers to racists on the one hand and cowards on the other--in the Republican Party. But the rallying to the standard of Judge Pickering is rapidly dashing that possibility, as they return to their old form:
Charles Pickering: ...involvement with the notorious Mississippi Sovereignty Commission. At the hearings on his confirmation for a federal judgeship, Pickering flatly asserted that he had never had any contact with the commission. It was, at the time, impossible to contradict his claim because the commission's files were sealed -- a sealing for which Pickering had voted in favor as a Mississippi state senator in the 1970's....Posted by DeLong at January 10, 2003 09:10 AM | Trackback[T]he release of the commission's records in 1998... revealed that Pickering had lied under oath... Pickering was, in fact, in direct communication with the commission in 1972 over a union fight in his home town of Laurel... especially interested in the possible influence within the union of a civil rights organization, the Southern Conference Educational Fund....
p> In 2002, when testifying again before the Senate, Pickering admitted that he had, indeed, had contact with the commission.... Pickering... [falsely told] the Senate that his concerns in 1972 were over possible infiltration of a union by the Ku Klux Klan....In 2002 he suggested that his former law partner (and former Mississippi lieutenant governor) the late Carrol Gartin, was not a segregationist. Only when confronted with hard evidence to the contrary by Senator Dick Durbin did Pickering grudgingly alter his claims.... Gartin was a major member of the sovereignty commission until his death in 1966. He personally directed numerous efforts to suppress civil rights activities and spy on civil rights activists at the height of the struggle of desegregation. The records of those efforts, in the unsealed Sovereignty Commission files, leave no question at all that Gartin was a dedicated and forceful leader of the segregationist white power structure that resisted civil rights reform at every turn -- going so far as to smear civil rights activists as bunch of "queers, quacks, quirks, political agitators and possibly some communists."
This man was Charles Pickering's law partner in the town of Laurel for years following his graduation from law school. He was Pickering's closest professional associate and long-time personal friend. And yet Pickering now wants the Senate to believe that he knew nothing of the Sovereignty Commission's activities....
Senator Mitch McConnell has been vociferous in praising Pickering's "moral courage" and his record of standing up for "victims of racial injustice." Yet most of this stems from Pickering's brief testimony in 1967 against a Klan leader, at a time when the Klan's violence had become a deep concern to the bigshots in Laurel.... [But] Pickering himself claimed... his testimony against the Klansman went hand in hand with his unswerving belief in "continuing our Southern way of life," and his certainty that much of the real "turmoil and racial hatred" had been stirred up by civil rights workers -- "outside agitators" -- and not those racist thugs attacked them...
Check out Pickering jr.'s website.
Here is how he concludes his statement (verbatim - italics are mine):
Once again, my family and I are most grateful to President Bush, Senators Lott and Cochran and all of the Mississippians from every walk of life who stood for my father's confirmation in the best spirit and tradition our the great state of Mississippi.
What's this spirit thing that Missippians like to mention? What does this code stand for?
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on January 10, 2003 05:02 PMSomebody has posted his actual testimony in 1967. It goes roughly: do you know this guy? Yes. is his reputation good or bad? Bad. The end. Now THAT takes courage. Another detail - the Klan were attacking whites and white businesses, so the white mayor wanted them stopped. Wish I had the source for this.
Posted by: John Isbell on January 10, 2003 08:41 PMIIRC, that's just his testimony in response to questions asked by the defense. There's got to be more--testimony in response to questions asked by the prosecutor. Doesn't there?
Posted by: Brad DeLong on January 10, 2003 10:00 PMHard to find with simple searches. It's too bad Paul Krugman is on vacation :)
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on January 11, 2003 09:45 AM“In 2002, when testifying again before the Senate, Pickering admitted that he had, indeed, had contact with the commission.... Pickering... [falsely told] the Senate that...”
I defended Hillary Clinton’s inability to remember the precise aspects of her future trades that earned her about $100,000. My argument at that time was that a human being should not be expected to remember every nit picky detail of their life. The same holds true regarding Charles Pickering and ourselves. Each and everone of us would likely be embarrassed by a questioner who is trying to nail us to the wall concerning what we did, for instance, on June 5, 1997 at 2:05 AM!
Brad - The Republican "Southern Strategy" is alive and well and the pandering goes on.
Posted by: on January 11, 2003 01:43 PM“[T]he release of the commission's records in 1998... revealed that Pickering had lied under oath... Pickering was, in fact, in direct communication with the commission in 1972 over a union fight in his home town of Laurel... especially interested in the possible influence within the union of a civil rights organization, the Southern Conference Educational Fund....p> In 2002, when testifying again before the Senate, Pickering admitted that he had, indeed, had contact with the commission.... Pickering... [falsely told] the Senate that his concerns in 1972 were over possible infiltration of a union by the Ku Klux Klan....”
Lied under oath? It is virtually impossible to remember every minor detail of an event of some thirty years ago. Heck, most of us can’t remember what we did last week! Almost nobody could avoid being deemed a liar when the investigators are minutely examining matters that have been long forgotten. What constitutes “direct communication?” How important a case was this to Pickering compared to his other duties?
Both the Democrats and the Republicans are guilty of practicing the politics of personal destruction. It has gotten to the point where one is virtually a fool for agreeing to serve their country. This foolishness has got to stop.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 12, 2003 07:54 AMI was also appalled back in 1993 when both Kimba Wood and Zoe Baird withdrew their names for consideration to be appointed by Bill Clinton to the U.S. Supreme Court due to their so called “nannygate” difficulties. This sort of nitpicking was inevitably going to cause enormous damage. Alas, my fears have been proven correct.
Posted by: David Thomson on January 12, 2003 09:09 AM"There's got to be more--testimony in response to questions asked by the prosecutor. Doesn't there?"
Well, obviously I haven't had the opportunity to review the trial transcripts. But it's hard to understand why the county attorney (Pickering) would be called as a prosecution witness in a trial of a Klan leader for murdering a civil rights worker--it doesn't seem likely that he would have personal knowledge of the matter unless he witnessed the killing (which nobody has claimed) or was part of the plot that lead to the killing (which would be damning, even if he turned state's evidence).
The excerpt of the testimony I've seen has him giving character testimony, and the prosecutor ordinarily doesn't get to put on character testimony about the defendant. On the other hand, it's hard to see why the defense would call somebody to give character testimony about the defendant unless the defense anticipated that it would be favorable testimony. So the scenario that seems likely is that the defense called Pickering, thinking that he would say that the defendant had good character, and got surprised by the answer Pickering gave. The prosecution under the circumstances would have no need to ask any further questions of the witness.
Posted by: rea on January 12, 2003 11:52 AM