Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Midweek Musings: ADDA endorses Howard Berman for Congress, Jackson previews DA campaign ad

Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys endorses Howard Berman for Congress

(Photo credit: Lawrence K. Ho, Los Angeles Times)
Choosing to stand with the majority of the other law enforcement organizations in the County of Los Angeles, the Association of Deputy District Attorneys have endorsed Congressman Howard Berman in his Congressional race. Upon hearing this news Congressman Berman stated:

'It is an honor to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Association of Deputy District Attorneys who stand on the front lines to protect our communities. Our campaign is supported by hard working men and women from Deputy District Attorneys to law enforcement members, all tirelessly working to keep our neighborhoods safe. I look forward to continue serving as their advocate and voice in Congress.' 

Posted by Pep Streebek

Jackson previews negative DA campaign ad

District Attorney candidate Alan Jackson released 'Protect,' the tv ad Jackson intends to air in the three weeks remaining before the November 6, 2012 election to decide LA's next District Attorney.

Jackson devotes half of his thirty second ad to a series of attacks on his rival, Chief Deputy District Attorney Jackie Lacey. At the fifteen second mark Jackson acknowledges that 'Jackie Lacey is a nice person,' a statement with which anyone who knows Lacey would wholeheartedly agree. However, thereafter, Jackson makes a series of statements about Lacey that range from 'misleading' to 'flat out lies' according to sources.

Jackson attacks Lacey for not having 'tried a case in thirteen years,' but fails to explain why that should factor in voters' decision making. He then describes Lacey as 'a political appointee,' doubtless a reference to Lacey's promotion to the number two position in the DA's office. But what Jackson fails to say is that he too received the same Friday afternoon phone call from DA Steve Cooley as Lacey did when he was promoted. Indeed every Deputy District Attorney gets a call from the DA when they are promoted, are they all 'political appointees?' 

Finally, Jackson says Lacey 'was dishonest under oath to protect her boss.' It's a statement that is stunningly disingenuous. That Lacey corrected her prior deposition testimony concerning a dispute with a former employee is not disputed. However, the LA Times reported that 'this is not a case of dishonesty but one of inattention.' They added that 'We continue to believe she's the best candidate for the job,' making Jackson's accusation a distortion of the truth and utterly baseless.
And therein lies the rub. To see Lacey credited with such high accolades must be deeply frustrating for Jackson who ran an effective campaign in the primary to protect the integrity of the office from the vile, dishonest and lie-laden campaign of failed DA wannabe City Attorney Carmen Trutanich. But for Jackson to now adopt the same tactics of half-truths and deception is surely a sign of desperation.

Notwithstanding everything that Jackson throws at Jackie Lacey, her campaign continues gain support from all across the board; from law enforcement to organized labor, from republicans to democrats. She has received the LA Times endorsement in which they credited her with having 'prosecuted everything from quality-of-life misdemeanors to murder, rising over the years to her current job as chief deputy district attorney in Steve Cooley's administration,' concluding that 'The next D.A. must be a creative thinker, a cautious manager, a proven leader. Lacey fits the bill.'

Whether the Lacey campaign chooses to respond to Jackson's ad or ignore it, remains to be seen. Thus far, Lacey's campaign has been a positive and effective one, and she may well decide to follow the course she has taken from the beginning; a dignified campaign worthy of one who seeks to lead the nation's largest prosecutorial agency. It's a strategy that has paid off and will play out over the next three weeks when LA voters make their decision.



Anonymous said...

Jackson should have spent all 30 seconds talking about himself instead of attacking Jackie. It won't do any good, she is going to win anyway. He would have looked better running a clean campaign and setting himself up for a run in 2016 when there will be a republican surge.

Anonymous said...

I was undecided, but now voting for Jackson who is finally standing up to his lying boss. Good luck in federal court Jackie. Finally, Jackson is calling it like everyone knows what it is perjury.

Anonymous said...

It was terribly disappointing to see Alan label Jackie as a liar when he has to know the real facts of what happened. It was sloppiness and inattention which she corrected. I believed Alan had integrity and honesty and I liked his position on three strikes. His ad does not reflect honesty or integrity but is slick and politically slimey. Shame on him for misleading the public.

Anonymous said...

Jackie is making a huge mistake not running any tv and not paying for a ballot statement. Jackson is very calculated. They are both pathetic choices for the future of the DAs office but at least Jackson has some real strategy and tries hard. Alan probably should have shown a copy of the lawsuit in the commercial and maybe quotes from her testimony and mentioned the low blood sugar but he probably figures that when voters repeatedly hear the word "dishonest" the specifics will not matter. God help the DAs office when this is the best that will head the most important prosecutorial agency in the world. And Berger, now that you have hedged your bets on Jackie winning you start to trash Alan? Shame on you.

Anonymous said...

I have completely lost all respect for you, Joe Friday, and will no longer be reading your blog after this ridiculous post. Please don't bother showing up to Jackson's election night party again, you will NOT be welcome this time around.

The fact that Lacey has not tried a case in 13 years is relevant to show that she is completely out of touch with what occurs in the courtrooms, which is where the majority of DAs (who do not spend all day blogging) spend their time -- trying cases. The public deserves to have a DA like Jackson, who knows how to try serious cases because he has actually done so (and won them), not someone like Lacey who has merely listened to presentations from the real DAs who actually try cases.

Lacey is a "political appointee" because she has admitted in the past that her promotion to Chief Deputy, which only occured AFTER she decided to run for DA, was a boost to her campaign because it gave her "more responsiblity" and a better ballot title. She has spent the entire time as Chief Deputy running her campaign, not running the office as she claims.

The first time Lacey testified, she admitted telling a subordinate that he should not join the union because it would be bad for his career. The second time she testified, she claimed that conversation never happened and that she only said so the first time because she was confused and had low blood sugar. The subordinate, Rob Dver, continues to maintain that Lacey DID say his career would suffer if he joined the union. Clearly, the private attorneys defending the DA's Office realized that Lacey had committed a major concession that exposed the office to massive legal liability during the first hearing, and thus they cooked up that ridiculous excuse about her blood sugar. She was NOT "correcting her testimony," SHE WAS FLAT-OUT LYING. And voters deserve to know what her true character is.

Anonymous said...

As a Deputy DA, I have YET to hear anyone in our office express a desire for Jackson to become the DA.

The reality is that Lacey is now going to win this race by a mile, and Jackson just committed career suicide by calling his soon-to-be boss a liar. The guy has no move after he gets blown out in the DA race, other than to try again in 4 years. And 4 years after that. He's the new Ipsen.

Alan Jackson is a fan club of one...himself. He's what we'd call "all hat, no cowboy" down in Texas. Which won't be too far from Antelope Valley, which is where he'll be running a misdemeanor calendar in 2013.

Anonymous said...

The article and comments are informative. The most unfortunate comment (article) is of the endorsement by the Los Angeles Times... The Times likes to be a king maker, unresponsive to other candidates during the last mayoral election, they promoted Villar(rigosa)and later responded to complaints saying in their opinion, there was no other viable candidate. Since then I have serious doubts of any candidate they prefer and I am so old fashioned that I believe a "news" paper should offer the facts, not indulge in shameless political bias and manipulation to influence voters. I'm not surprised a "news" paper prefers candidates that "look good", but we need more than that to run the city.
I'm still undecided... if
anonymous 10-18 has the fact straight...