Freep No longer Trustworthy?

[SWMAP]

Friday the Freep ran a story about the Attorney Discipline Board's examination of whether Samuel McCargo violated attorney ethics in the Kilpatrick settlement. The story notes that City attorney Ellen Ha was sickened when she realized that her boss had kept her in the dark about the earlier machinations, yet wanted her to stop the Freep's publishing of the text messages Her boss was John Johnson, Detroit Corporation Counsel.

And amazingly, this weekend, the Free Press endorses the same, disgraced Johnson for a new career on the Charter Commission!

John Johnson, 55, was Detroit's corporation counsel under Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. A graduate of Howard University and Valparaiso University School of Law, Johnson is defending himself against bar disciplinary charges that stem from his role in the settlement of the whistle-blower case against Kwame Kilpatrick. But he argues convincingly that any questions about his conduct as legal counsel can be traced to the existing city charter's vague and sometimes contradictory demands of the city's top lawyer. Furthermore, his experience as corporation counsel would be invaluable in helping the revision commission better define the obligations of that critical office.

I thought the Freep editorial board was nuts when they endorsed Warren Evans for Mayor - but this is just unbelievable. Can the Freep have been co-opted somehow?

[lilpup]

No - their argument for having him on the Charter Commission is a valid one. He can provide insight into the conflicts inherent in the current Charter that no one else can. The Law Department can't equally serve both the Council and the Mayor when they are in conflict, yet the current Charter expects them to. Johnson can provide information about specific points of conflict that no departmental outsider can.

[SWMAP]

Couldn't anyone else contribute the same insight? Another attorney? Why endorse the specific guy who helped cover up the Kilpatrick texts? Isn't it a little odd?

[daddeeo]

Welcome to Detroit where upside down is right side up.

[EMG]

I think a LOT of news is not trustworthy these days. Most is ultra-liberally biased. The one that comes closest to me in terms of trustworthy would be Fox News, but even that is questionable at times.

Of course the current majority of the U.S. voting population, as evidenced by the recent election of Obama, would say just the opposite.

[lilpup]

Couldn't anyone else contribute the same insight? Another attorney? Why endorse the specific guy who helped cover up the Kilpatrick texts? Isn't it a little odd?

Johnson was the guy calling the shots and he can be pressed about why he did things the way he did. Perhaps his interpretation of the Charter [[which provides for a strong Mayoral government) was that the Law Department's primary duty was to the Mayor's office, with the Council secondary. The Law Department absolutely cannot hold both as primary the way things are set up now. Since Johnson was calling the shots he knows where the weak points and sticking points are - just as computer companies hire hackers to head security and security companies hire ex-cons and thieves to improve company performance.

[Novine]

Sounds like Addington and Cheney.

[gnome]

It is a real head scratcher why any group would endorse John Johnson. Before he worked for the City as The Felon's mouthpiece, he worked for Detroit Legal Aid. The purpose of Legal Aid is to provide legal assistance to low income folks with civil matters.

For some reason State Representative Marsha Cheeks [[sister to Caroline Cheeks Kilpatrick and former wife to Warren Evans brother) had a little legal problem. Guess who gave State Representative FREE legal services?

John Johnson, that's who.

http://archive.nlpc.org/view.asp?act...rticle&aid=868

http://www.brennancenter.org/content...heck_to_legal/

I swear some endorsements would make me pull out my hair, if I had any.

Putting John Johnson on the Charter Commission is akin to baking a tiny bit of dog poo in a huge pan of lazagna. Who wants to take a bite of that?

[sehender1]

SWMAP:

I'll try to address some of your concerns.
First, let's be clear about Johnson's role in the KK scandal. He was not Kilpatrick's attorney, and not even present during the settlement negotiations. He was representing the city, and playing a much, much smaller role. Sam McCargo, who representing Kilpatrick personally, was much more involved.

Still, we obviously had deep reservations about Johnson coming into the charter endorsement process - to the point where I was not even certain he would get an interview with us. But his questionnaire was fantastic, and demonstrated a rapt understanding of the current charter, its weaknesses, and the opportunities to make it better.

So I put him on the list of people we'd sit down to talk with.
In his interview, he forthrightly answered all of our questions about the Kilpatrick affair, and ably defended each of his [[not very many) decisions in the process. Ultimately, I don't think I would have done everything he did, but his explanations for his behavior made it clear that many of the mistakes he made were as much the result of the difficult position he was in, rather than any bad intention on his part. Indeed, the charter itself, which casts the city's corporation counsel in a bizarre role sandwiched between the branches of government, seems to have made it nearly impossible for Johnson to do what you and I might have thought was best.

Needless to say, we were all satisfied with the answers he gave.

Beyond that, though, his interview revealed even more about how much he understands about the charter and the charter writing process, and clearly placed him among the top candidates. If you think about it, that makes perfect sense: In the simplest terms, who would know better about the charter than the city's chief attorney?

One thing to keep in mind about endorsements is this: They're a weighing process that takes into account many different factors about candidates themselves, and the fields they're up against.

We rarely boil someone down to the sum of their worst act, and try to look at people's positive and negative qualities [[Yes, everyone has both!) and determine which weigh the heaviest on the decision we're making in a given race.

Johnson far and away has more positive qualities than negative ones. And if you think back to what seems a long time ago in a galaxy far away [[pre-Kilpatrick scandal, that is) John Johnson was one of the most respected and admired attorneys in this area. Did he just "go bad" during the Kilpatrick saga? As usual, that kind of simple explanation doesn't suffice for a living, breathing human being.

Did he make mistakes during the scandal? Probably.
Do they outweigh his other service, or his understanding of the task at hand, which is writing a new charter? Absolutely not.
I'd stand as strongly behind our endorsement of Johnson as I would behind anyone else we're backing.

Hope this helps..


Stephen Henderson
Free Press Editorial Page Editor

[SWMAP]

Wow! I think you are really justifying! "Rapt."

I know that I would have resigned, if I were so conflicted. How can you stomach that he was such a coward that he told Ha nothing and yet sent her in to the furnace. What a boss!

Please help me understand why the Free Press doesn't call for new talent. Why you endorsed Evans for mayor and Charles Pugh [[ the very celebrity culture that we have to avoid in Detroit for now) for Council and Jenkins, the BFF of Christine Beatty for Council. These are huge mis-steps, imo.

I just don't recognize the Free Press now. I have life-long used Free Press endorsements in voting and now suddenly I have to ignore Free Press endorsements because they seem tainted.

[sehender1]

SWMAP:
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I've explained as best I could the complete picture we considered with our endorsements; it's fine that you feel the Kilpatrick scandal defines Johnson. We just disagree there.

It's a mistake to say the Freep is not calling for new talent, though. Lisa Howze. Andre Spivey. David Cross. Shelley Foy. That's nearly half our council endorsement list - all newcomers to politics.
You dismiss Jenkins on one-dimensional terms [[who cares that she's friends with Christine Beatty?????). And you reduce Charles Pugh to a celebrity - a completely inappropriately dismissive characterization of a guy who has a wide range of experience in and knowledge of Detroit neighborhoods.

We endorsed Evans for mayor in the primary because we thought he was the city's best bet to make the biggest short-term difference in terms of crime. Turns out, Mayor Bing even agrees with us, and hired him as police chief.

Again, you're entitled to disagree with us. But I'd really like to know how you think our endorsements are "tainted" now.. Tainted with or by what, exactly? We're looking very closely at the candidates and - just as important - the overall fields, and making our best picks.

[stinkbug]

She held a fundraiser at a facility that I have a connection to. She repeatedly tried to sell alcohol with a license. She was both ignorant of the concept of selling liquor without a license and adamant about doing it anyway.

Spend some time off camera with these fuckwads and you don't really want to vote for anyone.

No to Lisa Howze.

[gnome]

Stephen, thanks for wading in and explaining your rationale. Sounds like you're convinced you made the correct decision. To that end, and as a peace offering, I think I'll make some lazagna and send you a piece.

Let me know your thoughts.

[MIRepublic]

I think a LOT of news is not trustworthy these days. Most is ultra-liberally biased. The one that comes closest to me in terms of trustworthy would be Fox News, but even that is questionable at times.

Is this parody or are you serious? I don't even think Fox News watchers would rank Fox News as the most trustworthy of the bunch. lol

[Detroit500]

I prefer the News. If the Freep didn't have section B exclusively as "sports-only" coverage, I'd feel they're about even.

[EMG]

Is this parody or are you serious? I don't even think Fox News watchers would rank Fox News as the most trustworthy of the bunch. lol

I am VERY serious. Most media today support the liberal mentality which can in all seriousness be summed up as "keep on working, millions of bums on welfare are depending on you."

Fox dares to challenge those notions, and therefore gets criticized because bums don't like that stance.

I can't imagine anyone who actually works for a honest living AND is a legal citizen of this country having a problem with Fox.

[Gannon]

I can't imagine anyone who actually works for a honest living AND is a legal citizen of this country having a problem with Fox.

That is twisted on SO many levels, it is scary that anyone with more than three firing synapses could arrive at such a conclusion.

[digitalvision]

Anyone who believes one news source, and one alone, or decides to only see one viewpoint, liberal or conservative, are sheeple and you're being played.

All networks, as they're made up of people, have their biases. I personally dislike Fox's in-your face style; it insults my intelligence, but I don't like MSNBC for the same reason. I've seen too much of the bullshit of the ratings game first-hand to believe any of them are doing anything else but using the news as a vehicle to entertain.

I couldn't give a shit about three quarters of what US news covers because it's pointless and does nothing to help me, inform me, or make me smarter. Seeing Glenn Beck meltdown like a child or Keith Olbermann blabber on adds nothing to my day, and frankly, wastes my time because it's not a real debate.

I like the Freeps work, but I bet Stephen here would not take it personally that although a source I don't just take their/his viewpoint into consideration. I read it, I value it, but I make my own decisions.

As to Mr. Johnson, he was [[frankly by many still is) a respected attorney and not everyone who was involved in the Kilpatrick administration was a crook. Some were, but many are just public servants trying to do the best they can. And it's easy to castigate someone when you've not walked in their shoes.

[Bloomfield Pills]

The Freep stopped being "trustworthy" the minute they eschewed their own ethics policy that said "We don't imply we have witnessed events we haven't seen or been in places we haven't been" -- and then turned around and kept Mitch Albom after he did exactly that.

But that's chewing yesterday's breakfast, as Jim Leyland would say. The more important question now is: Can the Freep manage to publish one goddamned story without patting itself on the back? "In a story you first read on Freep.com..." Who gives a two-peanut crap?

[Gistok]

I am VERY serious. Most media today support the liberal mentality which can in all seriousness be summed up as "keep on working, millions of bums on welfare are depending on you."

Fox dares to challenge those notions, and therefore gets criticized because bums don't like that stance.

I can't imagine anyone who actually works for a honest living AND is a legal citizen of this country having a problem with Fox.

Well at least now we know what the Freedom Fries and 2nd Amendment bumper sticker crowd has been up to since Obama made it to the White House....

Watching Fox News, listening to the Shock Jocks on the radio... and fretting about all them "fuhriners" and people on welfare...

[Gistok]

I am VERY serious. Most media today support the liberal mentality which can in all seriousness be summed up as "keep on working, millions of bums on welfare are depending on you."

Fox dares to challenge those notions, and therefore gets criticized because bums don't like that stance.

I can't imagine anyone who actually works for a honest living AND is a legal citizen of this country having a problem with Fox.

Well at least now we know what the Freedom Fries and 2nd Amendment bumper sticker crowd has been up to since Obama made it to the White House....

Watching Fox News, listening to the Shock Jocks on the radio, and fretting about all them "fuhriners" and people on welfare...

[firstandten]

I'm sorry you feel that way.
I've explained as best I could the complete picture we considered with our endorsements; it's fine that you feel the Kilpatrick scandal defines Johnson. We just disagree there.

It's a mistake to say the Freep is not calling for new talent, though. Lisa Howze. Andre Spivey. David Cross. Shelley Foy. That's nearly half our council endorsement list - all newcomers to politics.
You dismiss Jenkins on one-dimensional terms [[who cares that she's friends with Christine Beatty?????). And you reduce Charles Pugh to a celebrity - a completely inappropriately dismissive characterization of a guy who has a wide range of experience in and knowledge of Detroit neighborhoods.

We endorsed Evans for mayor in the primary because we thought he was the city's best bet to make the biggest short-term difference in terms of crime. Turns out, Mayor Bing even agrees with us, and hired him as police chief.

Again, you're entitled to disagree with us. But I'd really like to know how you think our endorsements are "tainted" now.. Tainted with or by what, exactly? We're looking very closely at the candidates and - just as important - the overall fields, and making our best picks.

Slightly off topic, I loved your no endorsements for the school board. The reasoning was spot on and as a result I will leave that section of the ballot blank on Aug 4th

[kraig]

SWMAP:

I'll try to address some of your concerns.
First, let's be clear about Johnson's role in the KK scandal. He was not Kilpatrick's attorney, and not even present during the settlement negotiations. He was representing the city, and playing a much, much smaller role. Sam McCargo, who representing Kilpatrick personally, was much more involved.

Still, we obviously had deep reservations about Johnson coming into the charter endorsement process - to the point where I was not even certain he would get an interview with us. But his questionnaire was fantastic, and demonstrated a rapt understanding of the current charter, its weaknesses, and the opportunities to make it better.

So I put him on the list of people we'd sit down to talk with.
In his interview, he forthrightly answered all of our questions about the Kilpatrick affair, and ably defended each of his [[not very many) decisions in the process. Ultimately, I don't think I would have done everything he did, but his explanations for his behavior made it clear that many of the mistakes he made were as much the result of the difficult position he was in, rather than any bad intention on his part. Indeed, the charter itself, which casts the city's corporation counsel in a bizarre role sandwiched between the branches of government, seems to have made it nearly impossible for Johnson to do what you and I might have thought was best.

Needless to say, we were all satisfied with the answers he gave.

Beyond that, though, his interview revealed even more about how much he understands about the charter and the charter writing process, and clearly placed him among the top candidates. If you think about it, that makes perfect sense: In the simplest terms, who would know better about the charter than the city's chief attorney?

One thing to keep in mind about endorsements is this: They're a weighing process that takes into account many different factors about candidates themselves, and the fields they're up against.

We rarely boil someone down to the sum of their worst act, and try to look at people's positive and negative qualities [[Yes, everyone has both!) and determine which weigh the heaviest on the decision we're making in a given race.

Johnson far and away has more positive qualities than negative ones. And if you think back to what seems a long time ago in a galaxy far away [[pre-Kilpatrick scandal, that is) John Johnson was one of the most respected and admired attorneys in this area. Did he just "go bad" during the Kilpatrick saga? As usual, that kind of simple explanation doesn't suffice for a living, breathing human being.

Did he make mistakes during the scandal? Probably.
Do they outweigh his other service, or his understanding of the task at hand, which is writing a new charter? Absolutely not.
I'd stand as strongly behind our endorsement of Johnson as I would behind anyone else we're backing.

Hope this helps..


Stephen Henderson
Free Press Editorial Page Editor

Former city law chief says he aimed to dodge texts



BY JOE SWICKARD • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • July 31, 2009
Former Detroit city law chief John Johnson Jr. testified Thursday he didn't need to read a proposed court filing containing explosive text messages in a police whistle-blower suit. His reasoning: If he didn't read it, his office would not have to make it available under the state public records law.
Johnson, testifying at the professional misconduct trial of former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick lawyer Samuel McCargo, said he didn't probe for details at an Oct. 17, 2007, settlement meeting because that could lead to the release of the text messages, which he conceded would embarrass Kilpatrick.
Prodded whether he owed a greater duty to Detroit residents to produce the texts, Johnson stood firm: "I wouldn't see the citizens as clients."
Free Press attorney Herschel Fink, who led the newspaper's court fight for the text messages, scoffed at Johnson's take on the public records law.
"Whether he touched it or not has nothing to do with its being a public document," Fink said. "It was in the control of the City of Detroit."
Johnson, who is no longer with the city, is one of 44 candidates competing Tuesday for nine spots on the city's charter revision commission. He testified Tuesday that the charter's vague language led to him to conclude that his first duty as Detroit corporation counsel was to the city, not to its residents.
Johnson said the city opposed the release of text messages because they would reveal unflattering comments about public figures and divulge confidential government information and strategy. Exposure, he said, would make it harder to strike political bargains or to negotiate with unions or businesses.
In fact, the excerpts, first revealed on freep.com in January 2008, showed that Kilpatrick and his aide Christine Beatty lied at the police trial in denying a sexual affair. An $8.4-million deal was quickly struck calling for the texts to stay secret.
John Urso, chairman of the attorney discipline panel, chided Johnson for adopting an "ignorance-is-bliss attitude" to keep public records private.
Johnson faces legal ethics charges that he did not tell the City Council about the role text messages played in the settlement and that he allowed staff lawyers to deny a secret deal.
The hearing is scheduled to resume Aug. 13.




Stephen Henderson is my name.
Professional Kool-Aid Drinker is my game.

[sehender1]

ha! kraig, that was actually funny....

[kraig]

ha! kraig, that was actually funny....

Not as funny as your endorsement of him.

Given the article that was published in your very own paper, I have a question for you.

Would you make that same endorsement today?