More from the Scruggs Motion to Continue:
On May 9, 2007, when Balducci asked Judge Lackey whether he thought the agreement required arbitration, Judge Lackey responded, “It does… It looks like that is what they agreed to.”
May 29, 2007 call: Balducci told Lackey “that he only wants what Judge Lackey thinks is right, saying: ‘I damn sure didn’t want to do anything to jeopardize my relationship with you … I didn’t want to do anything in the world ever to do that relationship any harm. … I want to make sure that you and I are ok’ and that ‘it would break my heart if I thought I had put you in a bad position … when you called the other night I could tell that you were troubled by it. That’s why I told you ‘ do what your heart tells you'” (page 7).
August 9, 2007 call: “It is Judge Lackey who re-introduces the topic to Balducci and asks whether ‘Dick’ ‘wants this thing in mediation I mean arbitration.’ Balducci responds ‘yes… if that’s how you see it after you’ve taken a look at it, if you see it that way, it would be terrific.’ (emphasis added). No suggestion of a bribe is made.”
This one in particular really reeks to me of being stripped-from-context. I would wager that the context is not so exculpatory-sounding. This is particularly so when one recalls that, according to Grady Tollison’s account of Judge Lackey’s testimony, Judge Lackey said that through the early summer, he was told by Balducci that what was wanted for now was delay. I wonder if, in the context, this will be about that.