from Don Siegelman

[elleng]

New Evidence Reveals Shocking Government Misconduct in Siegelman Case
By Don Siegelman
June 10, 2015
While Justice Department rules require that the FBI investigate, that didn't happen in the "Siegelman case".
The State Attorney General used three retired FBI agents to investigate and work up the case against me.
In my case the Assistant State Attorney General leading my investigation was cross-designated as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA). The AUSA approached the U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Alabama asking him to convene a grand jury, because "he had a 'hope' of a greater case against the governor”, so testified Doug Jones, then U.S. Attorney.
[ http://tinyurl.com/no3xnrq ]
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) reported December 11, 2014 [http://www.pogo.org/…/Justice-Department-Downplays-Evidence…] that this same AUSA, who was leading my investigation, updated my Republican opponent's son by email!
The Department of Justice has this exculpatory email under seal, refuses to release it, and is fighting our Freedom of Information Act request, filled back in 2006! Nine (9) years ago. Some "transparency", huh?
So, my case was not investigated by the FBI, but by three RETIRED FBI agents hired on private contract by the State Attorney General. For five years, these three agents essentially did nothing else but investigate me.
Why?
Why would the Department of Justice deviate from their own rules against an incumbent Democratic Governor by allowing retired FBI agents to investigate him?
The answer is the subject for my next Post on Thursday: Guess Who Was Pulling the State Attorney General's Strings?
Hint: Who do you think was the Attorney General's political consultant?
My Musical selection: dedicated to YOU who fight for truth and justice: "Forever Young", by Bob Dylan.
[

]
Don E. Siegelman
Governor of Alabama, 1999-2003
Lt. Governor, 1995-1998
Attorney General, 1987-1991
Secretary of State, 1979-1987
Follow me on Twitter: @DonSiegelman
Like me on FB: www.facebook.com/FreeDonSiegelman

[rhett o rick]

1. Why does Pres Obama allow this injustice to stand? I am serious. Does anyone have an

idea?

[elleng]

2. I don't have an idea,

and it's one of the few issues, concerning President Obama, about which I'm very unhappy.

[OnyxCollie]

3. Because the petromilitary industrial complex has captured government

and Don Siegelman dared to cross Exxon.

Compare Siegelman to Chris Christie:

Christie’s Office Drove Exxon Settlement, Ex-Official Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/nyregion/christies-office-took-over-exxon-settlement-ex-official-says.html

By BENJAMIN WEISERMARCH 4, 2015

For more than a decade, the New Jersey attorney general’s office conducted a hard-fought legal battle to hold Exxon Mobil Corporation responsible for decades of environmental contamination in northern New Jersey.

But when the news came that the state had reached a deal to settle its $8.9 billion claim for about $250 million, the driving force behind the settlement was not the attorney general’s office — it was Gov. Chris Christie’s chief counsel, Christopher S. Porrino, two people familiar with the negotiations said.

One of those people, Bradley M. Campbell, was the commissioner of New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection in 2004 when the lawsuits against Exxon were filed. Mr. Campbell, in an op-ed article appearing in The New York Times on Thursday, wrote that “even more troubling” than the decision to settle the lawsuit were “the circumstances surrounding the decision.”

He goes on to say that former colleagues of his in the state government told him that Mr. Porrino “inserted himself into the case, elbowed aside the attorney general and career employees who had developed and prosecuted the litigation, and cut the deal favorable to Exxon.”

[Dont call me Shirley]

4. What did Don do to Exxon? I've googled it but can't really find a definitive answer.

[OnyxCollie]

7. ExxonMobil’s Alabama Paydirt

ExxonMobil’s Alabama Paydirt
http://harpers.org/blog/2007/11/exxonmobils-alabama-paydirt/

The State of Alabama believes that it was victimized by ExxonMobil. According to the state’s complaint launched by the Administration of Governor Don Siegelman, ExxonMobil committed fraud and underpaid the state in a contract dispute over natural gas pumped from Mobile Bay. Alabama won that litigation, and a jury awarded the state a judgment against ExxonMobil of roughly $3.6 billion. Not chump change, even for ExxonMobil. And for Alabama, an immense sum of money (roughly a third of the state’s annual budget).

But ExxonMobil appealed, secured a stay, and ultimately took the matter to the Alabama Supreme Court. Thursday, the state’s High Court handed down its decision, by a vote of 8-1. The Court sided with ExxonMobil and against Alabama. The punitive damage award was rejected, and Alabama was left with a compensatory award of $51.9 million, a pittance.

I’ll put my cards on the table. I have spent my career as a corporate lawyer representing firms much like ExxonMobil, including a Rockefeller or two. I believe that the United States is a litigation-crazed society, and that punitive damage awards have gotten out of control. So I am on board the tort-reform bandwagon. In fact, had I been on this court, I almost certainly would have supported a reduction of the judgment.

Nevertheless, there is something very foul and unseemly in the air surrounding this decision. It expunged the punitive award altogether. And the decision was 8-1. Every Republican justice sided with ExxonMobil and the court’s sole Democrat sided with the state. This serves to underscore and highlight what really looks like a partisan and political divide. That also is extremely telling.

[Dont call me Shirley]

8. Thank you, OnyxCollie. So Exxon had Don Siegelman imprisoned in retaliation.

This is what it will look like if these "trade" deals are enacted, but the corporations will be bankrupting states and nations for any slight of profit. Political prisoners will be the norm, Don is just the beginning.

[rhett o rick]

11. I guess I have to deduce that Pres Obama doesn't want (or can't) go against ExxonMobil. nm

[OnyxCollie]

12. Don Siegelman also interfered with Jack Abramoff's casino scam,

but I think removing Siegelman to help Abramoff was incidental.

It's not much of a stretch to deduce that Obama won't (or can't) go against ExxonMobil. After all, the Obama administration refused to prosecute those who tortured detainees to gain coerced confessions to support an invasion of Iraq and open a closed market.

'Cause whatever ExxonMobil wants, ExxonMobil gets. (Distributed costs be damned!)

2ndUPDATE: Kurdish Oil Min: Confirms Signing Deal With ExxonMobil
NOVEMBER 13, 2011, 6:42 A.M. ET
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111113-702948.html#printMode

--KRG signed oil and gas exploration deal with ExxonMobil
--Deal is final and binding, KRG oil minister says
(Adds Kurdish PM comments in paragraphs 5, 6.)

ERBIL, North Iraq (Dow Jones)--Kurdish oil minister Ashti Hawrami Sunday confirmed that the Kurdistan Regional Government had signed agreements with ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM) to explore for oil and gas in six blocks in the Kurdish region of Iraq.

"It is signed and completed on October 18. It is final and binding," Hawrami said.

Iraq Won't Cancel ExxonMobil Deal
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203501304577088362771645908

BAGHDAD—Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Friday that Baghdad wouldn't terminate ExxonMobil Corp.'s contract to develop the West Qurna-1 oil field in southern Iraq as punishment for signing a deal with the country's semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, with whom Baghdad has a long-running dispute over land and the sharing of oil resources.

~snip~

"We are looking for a way for {Exxon Mobil's} other contracts in any area to be within the legal contexts, but as for cancelling its contract in the south, no."

Mr. Maliki also said that Exxon has "frozen" its controversial contract with the KRG, which was unveiled in the first half of November, and suggested that his government was willing to find a way to ultimately make the deal work if negotiations were restarted with the involvement of the Ministry of Oil.

"It {the contract} has a legal violation, it does not work unless Exxon comes back and negotiates with the Ministry of Oil in the presence of a representative of the Kurdistan region, then possible," Mr. Maliki said.

U.S. Policy Options for Iraq
A Reassessment

Olga Oliker, Keith Crane, Audra K. Grant, Terrence K. Kelly, Andrew Rathmell, David Brannan

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG613.pdf

Keep Oil Revenues in the Hands of the Central Government

In 2005, oil exports accounted for 93 percent of the revenues of the Iraqi government; they will continue to account for more than 85 percent of planned government revenue for the foreseeable future. Without these projected revenues, the Iraqi central government will be unable to govern: It will be unable to pay security forces; fund government support programs such as the Public Distribution System (PDS), which provides food; or run clinics and schools.

~snip~

If new autonomous regions are created and gain control of local oil resources, the central government will be weakened financially. Regions will finance themselves, increasing their independence, and the central government will lack the funds needed to provide government services or pay for security forces. The regions will then take responsibility for providing these services and security, contributing to increased sectarianism and the potential breakup of the country. Conflicts over territory will deepen as regions seek to gain and cement control over resource-rich land.

The U.S. government should make it clear to Iraqi political leaders who desire U.S. support that the Iraqi national government must control oil revenues.3 These policy statements should be made discreetly in bilateral meetings. The U.S. government should also use its influence to pressure international oil companies with U.S. operations to make all payments for Iraqi oil to the Iraqi central government, not to regional governments. Exploration agreements should be signed with the Iraqi national government, not with regional governments.

As the Iraqi government debates these issues, the U.S. government should provide assistance to help it develop proposals for ensuring the equal distribution of oil revenues. Because they account for almost all government revenues, initially, oil revenues will be needed to fund Iraqi government operations at all levels—central, regional, and provincial—and to invest in infrastructure.

3 The Iraq Study Group argued that the federal government needs to retain control of oil revenues and that oil revenues need to be disbursed on the basis of population. The group argued that regional control of oil revenues would contribute to the disintegration of Iraq (Baker, Hamilton, and Eagleburger, 2006, p. 65).

Obama also rewarded those aided and abetted ExxonMobil in the conspiracy against Don Siegelman.

Why Did Obama Administration Ask Judge To Increase Gov. Siegelman's Prison Sentence?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023955756

From:
Daily Kos
June 5, 2012
By Ralph Lopez

According to Andrew Kreig who writes at OpEdNews.com, Siegelman, who was facing a 7 year sentence, is now serving a 20 year sentence, "one that Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder pushed for, beyond the 7 years he was originally sentenced to serve."

"In 2009, the Obama Justice Department requested that Judge Fuller sentence Siegelman to 20 more years in prison when his appeals are finished."

Kreig says, "The new administration stood shoulder-to-shoulder with it's Bush predecessors in continuing the frame-up and cover-up."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/05/1097552/-Gov-Don-Siegelman-Facing-20-Years-Obama-Pushes-For-Long-Sentence/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251292060/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023951944/

For the many DUers who are unhappy with the above story from OpEdNews by Andrew Kreig, here are some comments from Thom Hartmann and Governor Siegelman himself obtained from an interview he did with Thom Hartmann in 2009.

Siegelman: "I was surprised that the Obama administration is now opposing my position in the U.S. Supreme Court"

Hartmann: "Yeah, well this is what has me completely baffled...I don't get it."

Siegelman: "Well, it doesn't baffle me because with all due respect to the President and to Eric Holder, very little substantive change has taken place within DOJ...The very same people who approved my prosecution, the very same people who pushed my prosecution, those motivated to see me prosecuted, at the top level of the Dept. of Justice, are still there...They are still in power."

Hartmann: "I don't understand why when Barack Obama became President of the United States and Eric Holder became Attorney general, they did not ask for the resignations of these Bush holdovers who are still in office...I mean the woman who prosecuted, who initiated the prosecution against you, whose husband was the campaign manager of your opponent and Karl Rove's best friend since college, she, Laura Canary, she's still a Federal Prosecutor down there, who's still coming after you."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023955756

Department of Justice Pulls a Whitewash on Siegelman Whistleblower
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/10/department-of-justice-pulls-whitewash.html

The report becomes even more dubious when you consider OSC's recent history. Federal agents raided the office of former OSC chief Scott J. Bloch in May 2008 amid allegations of improper political bias and obstruction of justice. The New York Times reported that agents were trying to determine if Bloch, a 2003 George W. Bush appointee, had hired an outside firm to scrub his computer.

Gee, where would a Bush loyalist ever come up with such an idea?

As we reported last November, substantial evidence indicates Bloch and associate deputy attorney general David Margolis did their best to sweep Grimes' allegations under the rug and protect Leura Canary. And it appears that Bloch, before leaving office with the feds on his tail, removed Grimes' most serious allegations--making sure investigators would not even look into them.

How bad have things been at OSC in recent years? Consider this article from governmentexecutive.com in May 2009. It provides a searing analysis of the agency's woes:

The Office of Special Counsel is an independent oversight agency charged with protecting federal employees from prohibited personnel practices, particularly whistleblower retaliation. For an agency that must build a reputation for fairness with federal employees and other agencies, scandals like the ones during Bloch's tenure can be especially harmful.

"There was a lot of damage done," says former Deputy Special Counsel Timothy Hannapel, who served under Clinton-appointed Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan. "We'd tried to put the agency on a new path to credibility and . . . it was all just erased and in a drastic way, with the credibility of the agency at rock bottom."

What Should We Learn from Richard Shelby's Game of "Alabama Hold 'Em"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x516790
http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-Should-We-Learn-from-by-Roger-Shuler-100209-436.html

In a perverse way, you have to give credit to U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) for placing a blanket hold on more than 70 pending nominations from the Obama Administration. In the wake of announcing yesterday that he was releasing most of the holds, Shelby essentially admitted that he's a political extortionist. You have to admire a guy for that kind of honesty.

But here's what is not admirable about Shelby--and the Obama administration should keep this in mind going forward. Shelby's "Alabama hold 'em" gambit tells us that he is not serious about his objections on presidential nominees. In other words, there is no reason to think Shelby has legitimate grounds for objecting to any nominee. So Obama should move forward like a steamroller, challenging Shelby to hold his ground or dive out of the way.

Consider the sensitive U.S. attorney position in the Middle District of Alabama, site of the Don Siegelman prosecution. Joseph Van Heest, a highly regarded attorney from Montgomery, was ready for confirmation and could have been on the job months ago. But Shelby apparently objected, and the Obama administration decided not to fight for Van Heest's nomination.

That has caused George W. Bush appointee Leura Canary to remain in place, more than a year into the Obama administration. At last report, the White House was on the verge of nominating Montgomery lawyer George Beck, whose firm has strong ties to Karl Rove and Business Council of Alabama President Bill Canary. The possibility of a Beck nomination has drawn heavy fire from Alabama progressives.

Is Lawsuit Cash Having a Negative Impact on Progressive Politics?
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/04/is-lawsuit-cash-having-negative-impact.html

To top it off, Jones' public statements about the Beck nomination reflect significant foot shuffling and dissembling. Could that be because George Beck represented chief government witness Nick Bailey in the Siegelman/Scrushy case and reportedly allowed prosecutors to browbeat and coach his client? Could it be because Beck comes from the Montgomery law firm of Capel and Howard, which has strong ties to GOP strategist Karl Rove and Bill Canary, who is president of the Business Council of Alabama, husband of Leura Canary, and confidant of U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief Tom Donahue?

This scenario becomes particularly troubling when you consider that the other co-liaison counsel in the HealthSouth case--Jones' chief local assistant--was Rob Riley, the son of former Republican Governor Bob Riley. Why did Doug Jones need Rob Riley on the lawsuit team? Probably because Riley had inside information about former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. And that information probably came from Riley's involvement in a Republican conspiracy to conduct a political prosecution against Siegelman and Scrushy, a scheme that Alabama attorney and whistleblower Dana Jill Simpson revealed to the world.

Should progressives be concerned about Doug Jones' willingness to make money by jumping in bed with a member of the Riley clan? What about Jones' apparent determination to now push tainted nominees to a Democratic administration?

Regular readers know that Bob Riley has ties to GOP felons Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon. And yet Doug Jones, who now seems to have the Obama administration's ear, is comfortably aligned with Bob Riley's son.

Coverup in the Siegelman Case Now Extends to the U.S. Senate
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/07/coverup-in-siegelman-case-now-extends.html

The Senate approved by voice vote on June 30 the appointment of George Beck as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. Beck replaces Leura Canary, the Bush appointee who helped turn the Don Siegelman case into perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in American history.

But here's the kicker: Beck also played a prominent and highly questionable role in the Siegelman case. Beck's nomination was an opportunity for senators to grill a key figure in the Siegelman prosecution, to help determine how the U.S. justice system went badly off track in the Bush years.

The Senate, however, elected to punt, giving Beck a free pass into his new position and throwing an extra load of dirt onto a coverup of Bush-era criminality. For progressives who once had hope for the Barack Obama administration on justice matters, consider this: Beck is an Obama nominee, and the Senate is controlled by Democrats.

Have Democrats come to "own" Bush/Rove scandals that made a mockery of the U.S. constitution? It sure looks that way from here.

Siegelman Judge Asked To Recuse As Kagan, Rove Oppose Reviews
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/siegelman-judge-asked-to_b_534628.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8308581

Andrew Kreig
DC legal reform advocate and attorney
Posted: April 12, 2010 04:24 PM

Siegelman Judge Asked To Recuse As Kagan, Rove Oppose Reviews

But Kagan, now widely reported as a leading candidate to ascend from her post as Justice Department solicitor general to become her friend Obama's nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy, urged the high court in November to deny Siegelman a hearing. Kagan used technical legal arguments devised with the assistance of DOJ's trial prosecutors.

Since the 2006 convictions DoJ has withstood complaints that include: political prosecution orchestrated by Rove, judge-shopping, jury tampering, lying about Canary's recusal, firing a DoJ whistleblower, and suppressing evidence that DoJ tried to blackmail its central witness.

Kagan's stance already has created strong skeptics in progressive circles in Alabama, and is certain to irritate Siegelman supporters around the country if she is nominated to the Supreme Court. DOJ has requested that Fuller re-sentence Siegelman, now 64, to an additional 20 years in prison.

The Rule of Four says that at least four Supreme Court Justices must agree to hear a case before it can be reviewed. If Kagan must recuse herself, Siegelman's case will never get reviewed.

Court Won't Hear Siegelman, Scrushy Appeals
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-hear-siegelman-appeal-16490322
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014135600

The Supreme Court will not take another look at the bribery conviction of former Ala. Gov. Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

The high court on Monday turned away the two men's appeals. Siegelman was convicted of selling a seat on a hospital regulatory board to Scrushy in exchange for $500,000 in donations to Siegelman's 1999 campaign to establish a state lottery.

Siegelman's lawyers wanted to argue that campaign donations can't be bribes unless there's a clear agreement between the donor and the politician, and that there was no such agreement in Siegelman's case. Siegelman has been free on bond while appealing his conviction, while the courts refused to free Scrushy.

The appeals were turned away without comment.

[yurbud]

10. the same reason they don't attack Republicans for their crimes: you don't kick the master's dog or

help the guy the master's dog is attacking.

[Dustlawyer]

5. I hope they nail Karl Rove to the wall along with everyone

who played a part in rail-roading him to prison!

[samsingh]

6. kick

[bvar22]

9. This is especially infuriating because...

..the very first item on Eric Holder's "To Do" List after being appointed Attorney General
was to get corrupt Alaskan Senator, Ted Stevens, out of jail and his records cleaned up.
.
.
.
.
but Democratic Governor Don Siegelman?
The White House has Never heard of him.