Jackson Jambalaya

Bob Anderson

It ain't about the leaked documents, emails, texts and other communications. No, no, no, no, no. Who wants to bet that Ganucheau is cc: on many of those discussions?

Phil Billy spending all them pocketed campaign contributions. It’s good to be the Feel.

Good luck with that. For a judge to disregard the freedom of the press act will be a very tall order. Even if it happens, they will be sealed from the public.

Trying to bring pigott into it is interesting indeed. He found out where at least some of the bones are buried. Whatever he knows, can’t be good for Feel. But for him to pull this trump card, tell me this goes a lot deep than Feel.

Kill the messenger.

His texts should provide a clear path to at least an indictment. And he might be poking the wrong bear in this defamation distraction.

Phil is thinking that the same folks who talked to Wolfe, talked to the Feds. Even in a defamation case he’s pulling for straws, no court will make her reveal her sources .

What makes republicans think they can sue their way out of prosecution?

Feels Never gonna give this up, feels never gonna let this go, now turn around and discovery Feel

All the yada yada aside...would be interesting to know the funding source of this charade.

It would take a boat-load of TANF money for sure (used only as an example).

At least Brandon Presley is happy.

He thought that campaign fund would be his retirement. Glad to see him spending the it down.

Is he doing this just so Songy and Katie can have a job. I mean a job that doesn’t require work.

why are Nancy abd her son not in jail....

Given the evidence already published, the best thing Phil can do is let this blow over. Pride cometh before the fall.

Unfortunately, there are no bears to poke; just slimy slimes who happen to know specifics, the rest of us don’t. Phil is slimy and the sources are slimy. It’s newsworthy, but not really.

It will be interesting to see Anna Wolfe reacts
... now that she's the "news story".

Historically, judges have been reluctant to compel reporters to reveal their notes and sources. When judges have issued subpoenas for reporter's notes, competing news organizations have united to fight the subpoenas. If the things people tell reporters can be easily subpoenaed, then whistleblowers will not come forward. Newsrooms are not evidence lockers for law enforcement. Police and the feds need to do their own detective work.

Heep big football player watching from the side line for a change. The best defense is a good offence, go get'm Phil!

At Section V of his complaint, Bryant claims to have been defamed by the following statement:

"former Gov. Phil Bryant used his office to steer the spending of millions of federal welfare dollars — money intended to help the state's poorest residents —
to benefit his family and friends including NFL Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre."

It will be interesting to watch Phil try to prove that statement was false.

As others have implied, if we thought Phil's damage-control interview was bad, just wait until he sits for a deposition.

Who cares what people think when you have left over campaign funds at your disposal. Does anyone know how much was in the fund when Mr Bryant left office?

I read some where it can be used for legal issues/problems arising from time in office.

There's always a lawyer somewhere who will tell you, yes you should sue. Assuming you have money.

Arrogance is the great equalizer.

Please be careful Kingfish.
Phil is using a shotgun approach of the lawsuit to silence everyone.
Kingfish, I love your blog site so much I would hate for Phil to intimidate you and ruin it.
I really hope the State or the Eeds get to the bottom of this.
Phil will already have his buzz cut when sent to prison.

Where is Shad White when you need him?

This will surely backfire on FEEL. It could really bring everything out in the opening. If I was Feel, I woud shut the F&*( up. It's too laTe to let it blow over. All you TANF BOYS are going to J-A-I-L. FEEL, BRETT, TATE, etc.

The reporter has protections. Sources usually have none. One leaker was successfully prosecuted by the Obama administration . They tried to get the reporter but it blew up on them. However, the sources wasn't so lucky.

Put up or shut up time. Show your evidence show why you feel confident to continue slandering the Gov

@8:05 is definitely Phil Billy

I think Phil probably is going to regret having done this. Got some bad advice from his attorney(s). JMHO

KF...a reminder... Obama's leakers violated the Espionage Act. They went to prison after being convicted.

I doubt seriously Ms Wolfe voicing her suspicion that our former Governor knew or should have known about the misuse of funds seems obvious to many, is hardly on the same level as a security threat to the Nation.

I wonder if the only reason our former Governor filed this suit is because he has Senatorial dreams or God help us, Presidential ambitions.

Then it makes sense to waste time and just enough money to force Ms Wolf to agree to a settlement offer for a ridiculously low sum of money with careful wording to benefit him and not harm Ms. Wolfe. The legal fees and time delays with last minute postponements and weak "discovery' claim and legal billings will mount quickly...and be dragged out for years. Then I predict he will to try to claim he won. It's certainly a strategy that has been working for sleazy politicians since party loyalty has become akin to religious belief.

An explanation of stupidity and/or being duped into doing this also works.

Yup. that's what I was thinking of. You made the point. leakers rarely enjoy any protections as reporters do.

You know there are valid objections to these subpoenas, and likely will have a battle over motions to quash. Also by doing this, he is just giving Brandon Presley more fire-power to go against Tate.

... he is just giving Brandon Presley more fire-power to go against Tate.

How so? Be specific.

Nah, Presley campaign running on fumes.

Dang, I’m damn ne’er hesitant to post anything about that TANF situation! The ex Governor got me scared!

I swear, he ain’t did or said none of what they are saying he did, it just ain’t true! I am pleading the 5th and all them constitutions.

The left has learned that they can do anything they want to Americans and reveal nothing as long as they call themselves the press. Democracy at its finest.

Wow crimes have been committed and it’s the Press’ fault, do tell these folks facing indictments and afraid they may have culpability are being railroaded by the liberal press. Why hasn’t Supertalk, Fox and the others on the right done the same?

Phil Bryant is a victim of the liberal media, because that's who calls the shots in Mississippi. Got it.

But, but, but, he’s the whistleblower.

The Einstein @ 5:23 yesterday needs to take a civics class. It’s called the 1st Amendment. And, he might want to try and understand how an amendment happens; not the through the unbalanced exercise of legislative power that is Congress. It actually requires the people to agree.
And, there is no federal law providing protection for the press to not be compelled to reveal sources. It’s a privilege that has to be provided under state law.

I don't see how any of the information sought is relevant to Bryant's claims in the complaint, and I don't think outing "leakers" is a legitimate purpose.

Here's the rule I think applies to these subpoenas:

"On motion of a party or of the person upon whom a subpoena for the production of . . . is served and upon a showing that the subpoena power is being exercised in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the party or the person upon whom the subpoena is served, the court in which the action is pending shall order that the subpoena be quashed and may enter such further orders as justice may require to curb abuses of the powers granted under this rule. To this end, the court may impose an appropriate sanction."

Miss. R. Civ. P. 45(f).

Apparently, the reporter's privilege in Mississippi is based of the freedom of the press in both the state and federal constitutions. The state constitution says "The freedom of speech and of the press shall be held sacred[.]" For an excellent primer, see the following:

https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-compendium/mississippi/

Does anybody still think Brad Pigott wasn't fired for getting too close to Phil Bryant and all those delicious votes and dollars in the Pine Belt?

I think Phil will have to pierce the attorney-client privilege to get anything out of Pigott. His client was a state agency, and Bryant was already gone by then.

That privilege does not apply to non-clients. If he leaks to media, it's not protected.

As for 11:24, the privilege does not cover leakers, only reporters.

What’s the delay in Zack and Nancy going to prison?

Any date to report to prison?

KF
The "all documents" wording seems problematic and isn't it asking the reporter and paper or the "source" for their documents given to the reporter or paper used for the latter's " work product"?

Phil's not suing Pigott's client that provided information to be leaked. He's suing Pigott personally ,the reporter and the paper.

What did I miss that makes Pigott a legitimate target for Bryant. Nor has anyone evidence that anyone said they had evidence Bryant knew about the scam...only that others assumed as Governor he knew or should been given reports or to have known. There was evidence that he communicated with those convicted about their intended " projects".

So, no more "Deep Throats"? No more even failed attempts to warn there's no WMD's? Not even telling reporters something seems to be "smelling rotten in Denmark" and they should follow the money?

It's seems "leakers" are punished when their "employer" discovers who they are and the punishment is to "be fired" unless the information falls under national security or criminal violations and THEN a prosecutor files, not a plantiff's attorney. And, the exact information still has to shown to be false.

Dear Whistleblower's: Find a friend to buy a burner phone for you. Call the reporter with a specific plan (flower pot in the window maybe) that will result in a meeting in the basement garage. I'll be in the hoodie and mask)? And, be careful not to reveal how " high up" you "suspect" the corruption could go.

I'm tired of lawyers who abuse the system and in the process cause it to be overburdened and costly. There was even a Texas law firm that once advertised they could throw so much paper and discovery at their opponent, he'd go broke and his lawyers would go broke trying to defend their assault and then give up!

I'm tired of lawyers who abuse the system and in the process cause it to be overburdened and costly.

Pigott's unauthorized leaks of privileged attorney-client work product was certainly an egregious abuse.

As I read the subpoena to Pigott, it asks for any and all communications with Mississippi Today, Anna Wolfe, and anyone "affiliated" with either.

That's way too broad. Plus, it could certainly cover communications that were in furtherance of Pigott's investigation into the allegations of the complaint. Under those circumstances, I think the attorney-client privilege would apply.

These subpoenas look like a fishing expedition to me.

A couple of things need to be understood about the reporter's privilege. First, it does not apply when the sources of the reporter's information is at issue. In Brinston v. Dunn, the federal district court framed the analysis as "to what extent qualified privilege protects a non-party journalist against compelled disclosure of information obtained in the course of reporting a story." 919 F. Supp. 240, 242 (S.D. Miss. 1996) (emphasis added). However, the federal district court in Lousteau v. City of Canton, Mississippi found that the qualified privilege applied to a news reporter who was a party but that the news reporter’s act of filing the lawsuit and the defenses asserted by defendants placed the sources of the reporter’s information in issue and removed the protection otherwise afforded by the privilege. No. 3:11CV676-DPJ-FKB, 2013 WL 1827738, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 30, 2013) (applying Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 621 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1980)).

Likewise, when the issue is whether the media defamed the plaintiff, the reporter's privilege can be overcome. In Brinston v. Dunn, the federal district court noted that "the Fifth Circuit recognized that journalists generally have a qualified privilege not to reveal the identity of a confidential source in a civil case but found that the privilege may be outweighed by necessity and relevance in a libel case." Brinston v. Dunn, 919 F. Supp. 240, 243 (S.D. Miss. 1996) (emphasis added) (referring to Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 621 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1980)).

The reporter's privilege cannot be used as a sword and a shield. In other words, a media outlet cannot defame someone, claim an undisclosed source as the basis of the defamatory statement, and then conceal the identity of the source.

This is why the district court noted in Brinston v. Dunn that "the Fifth Circuit recognized that journalists generally have a qualified privilege not to reveal the identity of a confidential source in a civil case but found that the privilege may be outweighed by necessity and relevance in a libel case." Brinston v. Dunn, 919 F. Supp. 240, 243 (S.D. Miss. 1996) (emphasis added) (referring to Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 621 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1980)).

First, Phil Bryant has no campaign cash laying around as some have indicated. He gave it away to other candidates and causes. Second, his attorney took the case on contingency. He doesn't get paid unless he collects and Billy Quinn doesn't bet on losers.

To the comment at 11:43, I will add that none of the defendants have yet tried to blame their statements on good faith publication of false information provided by confidential sources. I don't think the answer if even due yet.

So in that light, these subpoenas are way too premature. Maybe Phil's teams wanted to try to ram the subpoenas through before the defendants could timely move to quash. If so, I hope that backfires spectacularly.

5:24: Bullshit. Billy and Tad may have taken this case on a contingency, but it was probably only to return a favor to the MSGOP for all the BP work. I'm not saying Billy didn't earn every penny, but it still looks like calling in a favor to me, not a case taken on its own merits.

I’m always surprised to see the hostile attacks on Anna Wolf in these comments. Let’s look at her actions. She single-handedly uncovered massive corruption in a program designed to help the poorest people in Mississippi, and revealed that our taxpayer dollars were instead being directed to the politically connected for dubious and illegal reasons. All she has done is what we expect of quality journalism. Anna’s politics are not the same as mine, but I applaud her lifting the rocks on the squirming underbelly of Mississippi. After all, why help poor children when we can pad the accounts of connected griiftets.

She single-handedly uncovered ...

Single-handedly? You can't be serious. Without the leaks she had bupkis beyond triangulation.

Anna’s politics are not the same as mine ...

So you know her personally? Your comment makes sense now.

My $0.02: The lines have blurred between news reporting and editorializing. If new reporters stick to news reporting, they should be fine.

But, when reporters report the news, and then tell the people what they should think about the news, they have crossed the line from journalists into opinion editors.

The problem with mixing the two is that one winds up publishing opinion as fact. (I have a strong opinion about the "citizen journalist" movement, but that's another story).

I think KF really threaded a needle with the way he set this site up. My hat's off to him.

Y’all all missed point on campaign funds, he kept his money but after he kept his funds and drained the account of over a million dollars, he changed the law for others, that is the issue,