Ok, so here it is. I've tried for the longest while now to be as objective as I possibly could about the whole Larry Langford indictment, trial, conviction, boot from Birmingham's mayor's office and guesstimation on sentencing. I have listened to reaction from our listener's both on the air and out in the streets. I just want to state for the record, once and for all---(clearing my throat)---LARRY LANGFORD WAS NOT SET UP!!!!!

I believe Langford to be a good man. I believe Langford is a man of Faith. I believe Larry Langford is an effective and proactive civic leader. But, more importantly, I believe Larry Langford made some very poor choices--in friends and actions. On the witness stand during Langford's trial, Al LaPierre testified that his friend of some 30 years broke the law when Langford accepted $50,000 from him to pay off a loan at Colonial Bank.

Throughout the trial, Langford's zeal for fine clothing, jewelry, gambling, cash and credit was exposed, raising questions about his character. His private life was made VERY public, and one couldn't help but to wonder how embarrassing that was for his family. No one--- I don't care who you are--wants to see another person's family dragged into the mud. Over a number of years, according to court testimony, Langford accepted, money, gifts, clothes, etc., from investment banker William Blount, through/and/or from Al LaPierre. Here's what Alabama law says about said activity (Alabama Ethics Commission):

Section 36-25-5(c) states:

"No public official or public employee shall use or cause to be used equipment, facilities,

time, materials, human labor, or other public property under his or her discretion or

control for the private benefit or business benefit of the public official, public employee,

any other person, or principal campaign committee as defined in Section 17-22A-2,

which would materially affect his or her financial interest, except as otherwise provided

by law or as provided pursuant to a lawful employment agreement regulated by agency

policy."

Section 36-25-7(a) states:

"No person shall offer or give to a public official or public employee or a member of the

household of a public employee or a member of the household of the public official and

none of the aforementioned shall solicit or receive a thing of value for the purpose of

influencing official action."

Section 36-25-7(b) states:

"No public official or public employee shall solicit or receive a thing of value for himself

or herself or for a family member of the public employee or family member of the public

official for the purpose of influencing official action."

Friends, that's just state law. Both LaPierre and Blount testified that indeed, they had bribed Langford to "keep him happy, for the purpose of getting county bond finance business. " After his conviction on all 60 counts of government corruption, Langford blamed the media and racism for his downfall.

Granted, the speed of which the jury rendered a verdict is more than questionable. But, Langford says the jury didn't look at the evidence---that prosecutors didn't prove their case that he ever asked Blount or LaPierre for anything, he never asked for a cut of the millions of dollars Blount made from Jefferson County. However, LaPierre testified ( and the judge allowed) Langford came to him saying that he needed money bad, to pay his taxes. Wham! A $30, 000 check was stroked for Langford's IRS troubles. At three high end clothing stores, Langford racked up $50,000 worth of debt ---AT EACH STORE! You know about the $12,000 used watch, you heard about the $25,000 credit card Langford received from a bank and ran that up to $63,000. Yes, Langford gave his coat which had cash in the pockets to a homeless man in New York City. But, as prosecutors said in court, how long was it before he got another coat and money back into his pockets courtesy of Bill Blount?

The picture that was broadly painted in court was that Langford was a shopaholic , had gambling habits, didn't handle money well, had a big heart, and was a giving person-- which made him a target. A target opportunists and the federal government.

But, in my opinion, he WAS NOT set up. Langford's argument that he never asked for anything from Blount or LaPierre, but nowhere in court testimony did he ever refuse items of value or money. Nowhere. Larry Langford's trouble is--as painful as it may be to stomach---HE ACCEPTED EVERYTHING THAT WAS OFFERED AND/OR GIVEN TO HIM!

Does that make him a bad person? No, it makes him human. Just like you and me, who make bad decisions or poor choices every day. But, maybe not as costly.