How is Siegelman not guilty?

[Prefer]

forgive me, but I have not been able to locate this information.

How are the charges against him a trumped up conspiracy?

Can anyone explain it to me?

[Richard Steele]

1. ...

:popcorn:

[Mandate My Ass]

2. ...

:popcorn:

[LSK]

3. watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyh9BYeM43A

[Prefer]

4. I can't stream behind the firewall. can you just summarize in a few sentences

I have been unable to embrace this story as uch because I can't find the details that exonerate him from the alleged crime, which I believe is bribery.

I understand there was a $9000 motorcycle purchase that is said to be legal, but there was something about a $500,000 bribe to sponsor the lottery or something, and I haven't heard how he was set up and is actually innocent on this charge.

Will someone just pen a few details I can't locate? No sarcasm intended here, I really want to know. and I acknowledge the larger US Attourney scandal is of more gravity than these charges against Siegelman. No argument there.

[LSK]

9. well in short he is accused of taking campaign money for Govt favors

Which isnt exactly a crime, its almost business as usual in Washington.

From Wikipedia:

"In short, Siegelman was accused of trading government favors for campaign donations when he was governor from 1999 to 2003 and lieutenant governor from 1995 to 1999, and Scrushy was accused of arranging $500,000 in donations to Siegelman's campaign for a state lottery in exchange for a seat on a state hospital regulatory board."

snip

Jury controversy

Following the trial, Kilborn and McDonald raised issues regarding the jury's impartiality after receiving what purported to be emails exchanged between two jurors during the trial.<11> In court the judge said, "I do not want to deliberate too much about these e-mails".<11>

Rove controversy

In June 2007, a Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson of Rainsville, Alabama, signed a sworn statement that, five years earlier, she had heard that Karl Rove was preparing to neutralize Siegelman politically with an investigation headed by the U.S. Department of Justice.<12> Simpson later told the Birmingham News that her affidavit's wording could be interpreted in two ways. She also stated in the same interview that she had written her affidavit herself, whereas in her Congressional testimony she had admitted to having help from a Siegelman supporter.<13>

According to Simpson's statement, she was on a Republican campaign conference call in 2002 when she heard Bill Canary tell other campaign workers not to worry about Siegelman because Canary's "girls" and "Karl" would make sure the Justice Department pursued the Democrat so he was not a political threat in the future.<12> "Canary's girls" supposedly included his wife, Leura Canary, who is United States Attorney for United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama and United States Attorney for United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Alice Martin.<12> Leura Canary did not submit voluntary recusal paperwork until two months after Siegelman attorney David Cromwell Johnson's press conference in March 2002.

In July 2007, 44 former state attorneys general, both Democrats and Republicans, signed a petition to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees requesting further investigation of the Siegelman prosecution.<14><15>

In September 2007, Simpson gave sworn testimony to the United States House Committee on the Judiciary regarding this issue (see below under Congressional Reaction).

Reporters Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane reported on the news site Raw Story that Karl Rove met with Riley campaign higher-ups and advised Bill Canary on managing Republican Bob Riley's campaign against Siegelman: "Two Republican lawyers who have asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation allege that Canary and Rove also worked together on the 2002 Alabama governor's race. One of the lawyers is close to the Republican National Committee in Alabama".<16>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Siegelman

[Prefer]

15. Thank you for the leg work.

I do know the Rove stuff. That is the main thing we hear about the story (as evidenced by your post)

I am specifically interested in the question "is he dirty"? You said it "isn't exactly a crime"? What does that mean? Is he guilty of a crime or not?

To further mitigate the attacks against me for asking this question let me qualify it by saying I don't support Wm Jefferson if he is taking bribes. For all I know, the feds told him they could use him in a sting, and then stung him with it. That is a possible scenario. Also I am not one of the people who was willing to look the other way on Spitzer because "prostitution should be legal", as was prevalently argued here.

So bottom line - did Siegelman do wrong, or did he do no wrong?

Still waiting for an answer.

[Warpy]

17. The problem is that his "trial" was so outrageously corrupt

that nobody knows what he did, when he did it, and whether or not it was against either the spirit or the letter of the law.

The DOJ was so thoroughly corrupted by this administration that a lot of cases are going to need to be revisited down the line.

[Prefer]

20. This makes me uncomfortable

I agree the "trial" was corrupt and there was a BIG conspiracy to get him, but IF HE WAS GUILTY OF 500k BRIBERY, he should NOT get a free pass on that. That's my concern. I don't want to be supportive of a guy who took a bribe - we don't need people like that in the party.

Is there some way the 500k could be not illegal? Was it an act of legal donation bundling? Someone must know.

[Prefer]

21. Here is the answer - thanks to who posted the link

Crimes for Democrats, Fundraising as Usual for the G.O.P.

Start with the notion that the conduct that figures in the accusations is actually a crime. The basic charge is that businessman Richard Scrushy gave $500,000 to the Alabama Education Foundation, a vehicle Siegelman created to run a campaign for a state education lottery, and Siegelman in exchange appointed him to the state’s hospital oversight board.

WOODS: You do a bribery when someone has a real personal benefit. It’s that you’re exchanging an official public act for a personal benefit. Not, “Hey, I would like for you to help out on this project which I think is good for my state.” If you’re gonna start indicting people and putting them in prison for that, then you might as well just– build nine or ten new federal prisons because that happens everyday in every statehouse, in every city council, and in the Congress of the United States.

PELLEY: What you seem to be saying here is that this is analogous to giving a great deal of money to a presidential campaign. And as a result, you become Ambassador to Paris.

WOODS: Exactly. That’s exactly right.

[Dr.Phool]

27. Not to mention that Scrushy already had sat on that board for years.

And he had been appointed by both Rep. and Dem governors.

[Warpy]

29. Remember, he's just out of jail temporarily

while he appeals the verdict. If there is probable cause, he will get a new trial, not a free pass.

He should have been out while the case was appealed. That was one giveaway to the corruption in the DOJ, that he wasn't even given the courtesy of time before he reported to jail in order to clear up his affairs. They dragged him out of the courtroom and to prison.

I have no idea whether he's guilty of anything, nobody does. That's what a corrupt judicial system produces when it railroads people, serious doubt. At the very least, he needs a new trial, preferably out of state.

[notadmblnd]

31. The bottom line is... we don't know because he didn't get a fair trial

(which we are all entitled to by rights granted in the constitution). The fact that there is no transcript (you know the little paper the court recorder types out during every trial?) is proof that the trial wasn't fair. Now as I recall, we are all supposed to be presumed innocent until convicted. So supposedly, somebody said he was guilty, but where's the paper work to prove it?

[LSK]

32. the distinction is that he did not personally benefit from the "bribe"

I.E. he didnt take the money and go out and buy a nice yacht.

[L. Coyote]

5. DonSiegelman.org has a lot of info

That's http://donsiegelman.org/

Follow past DU Siegelman threads from this post:
Political Prisoner Don Siegelman: Will the 60 Minutes Spotlight Make a Difference?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2909551

Basically, Siegelman sought to start a lottery to support education.
Corrupt dudes Abramoff, Scanlan, Gov. Riley, Rove, et.al, opposed by illegal means.
The Corrupt Bastards defeated the measure, and the campaign was in debt.

Scrushy contributed to the campaign fund, to retire some of the debt of trying to improve AL education.
Rs charged both men with crimes, saying the money was a payoff to get on a state board.

Of course, the money did not go to Siegelman! Scrushy had even been on the board before.

[Prefer]

26. Neighbor State Georgia has a lottery that supports education

So that was not a far off idea.

Yeah this is a scam big time, these charges really are an abuse of justice.

[frogcycle]

6. why not contact his lawyer?

that is, if you actually care about getting meaningful answers.

Or, you could just throw some shit out there in DU to see what you can stir up.

[Prefer]

10. Why not just answer the question?

I have been reading about this for months, yet I still have this basic question unanswered.

[femmedem]

7. Here's something that might help.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/03/first-monday-the-siegelman-case-a-political-prosecution-exposed/

[Prefer]

24. Thanks femmedem - that was what I was looking for

[dchill]

8. Really bad title.

Try your Google.

[Mandate My Ass]

11. Really. It is that simple.

His screen name (anagram) is a big clue as to where he's coming from and what he's trying to accomplish.

[Bonobo]

14. How quickly did you figure that out? That was great.

I am alerting.

[Prefer]

18. Go ahead.

Did I do something wrong? I simply asked a question that no one has answered.

Am I bound to support corrupt people just because they are on my side and if I "ask the wrong question" I am an antagonist?

Furthermore, I resent someone accusing me of being a freeper simply because the letters in my screen name can be re-arraged to spell "Freper" or "Freepr". What does that prove? I have already detailed that when I created the account My desired clever name was already taken on three different tries, so I picked a random word off the screen which was Preferences and I shortened it.

Is Siegelman dirty or clean - just answer. I don't want to support someone just because he is in my party, if he is actually a dirty politician. All I did was ask to establish that, because in all the time of following this story, I can't clearly see how he was set up.

[LSK]

12. agreed

If you don't know much about the case why not post: "Can someone give me a brief overview of the Seigelman case?"

[Prefer]

23. The overview of the case

has more to do with Canaries and Rove. That's my point. All you read bout the case mainly focuses on that.

I was asking specifically about the bribe allegation, because the details are buried so deeply under the Rove stuff.

[terrell9584]

13. When they prosecuted him they came up

with an indictment that had over 50 charges, alot of them just the same damned charge but in a different location. There was corruption in the Siegelman administration and his name was Nick Bailey. Bailey was offered a deal by the feds to go after Siegelman. They wanted him down and they wanted a way to tie him to Scrushy so that people would think he was guilty (because Scrushy actually is guilty.) The only connection between him and Siegelman is that Siegelman appointed him to the same board that he had been appointed to by James, Folsom and Hunt

[Prefer]

16. So it sounds circumstantial.

There is no proof of quid pro quo if it was a justified appointment, as it appears to have been, by precedent. What about the $500,000 though?

[Ordr]

19. There's no concrete evidence from either side.

[tsuki]

41. Same circumstance, different characters.

Sam Fox gives the Swiftboaters $50,000. The Swiftboaters are working for GB re-election. Bush appoints Sam Fox ambassador to Belgium (a two year European vacation on the backs of the taxpayer.)

Now, either Siegelmann needs to be let out of prison, or Bush needs to be sent to prison. You decide.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. Basically, Siegelman appointed a campaign contributor to a state post

The prosecution spun this into bribery.

If so, then every chief executive, past and present, in every state and every POTUS who ever served is guilty of exactly the same thing.

[Prefer]

25. Thank you, too

That is the answer I couldn't find.

And the point is, there was not even a tangible benefit to the appointment to suggest bribery.

WOODS: You do a bribery when someone has a real personal benefit. It’s that you’re exchanging an official public act for a personal benefit. Not, “Hey, I would like for you to help out on this project which I think is good for my state.” If you’re gonna start indicting people and putting them in prison for that, then you might as well just– build nine or ten new federal prisons because that happens everyday in every statehouse, in every city council, and in the Congress of the United States.

[ljm2002]

28. Here's my understanding of the gist of it...

...Siegelman did get a large donation for the state lottery system (or, in support of the system which they were trying to get okayed by the voters), which Siegelman thought would be the best way to finance the state's schools.

Sometime after getting the donation, the man responsible for it was appointed to a state hospital board.

Now here are a few salient facts: 1 - Siegelman never personally profited from this -- the money did not go to him, nor was there ever any allegation of that. 2 - the man in question who he appointed to the hospital board, was by all accounts eminently qualified for the position. In fact, he had been appointed to the same position by 2 or 3 previous governors, of both political parties. 3 - the man who claimed to see Siegelman coming out of a room with a check clutched in his hand, is himself a criminal whose testimony is suspect. Also, the check in question was written at a later date -- in other words, it is very dubious whether he told the truth, based on other known facts.

Note, even if Siegelman had improperly given the man the position on the hospital board, in order for the offense to reach the legal standard, he would have had to appoint someone who was unqualified -- in other words, the state has to show some form of actual harm. Since the man was not only qualified, but had been appointed to the same position before, with no complaints about his ability to do the job... no harm, no foul, legally speaking. Theoretically speaking, of course: "In theory, theory and reality are the same; while in reality, they are different."

[Prefer]

34. Thank you for those additional details

they add to my understanding of how much of an abuse of justice this is. I had heard of the uncredible witness, but I hadn't known what he claimed to have witness, now I understand.

[Vickers]

30. Yes, here is the explanation:

Karl Rove sees you in his dreams.

Hope this helps.

[Uncle Joe]

33. Your title would be better asking "How is Siegelman Guilty?" As even after all this time in prison

there is no written transcript of his trial, something I believe of which is required within 72 hours or so a trial. He can't even appeal his case until there is one, Bush's "Justice" Dept. was so afraid of him speaking out, they wouldn't even let 60 minutes interview him. This of course is the same Justice Dept. that fired all those District Attorneys because they wouldn't prosecute Democrats on trumped up charges. If we as a nation believe in the innocent until proved guilty concept, there is no written proof of Siegelman's guilt. So I contend your title is slanted toward the negative.

[Mandate My Ass]

35. Correct. It's a logical fallacy to ask someone to prove a negative.

Nobody has to prove their innocence to anybody else's satisfaction in this country. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. Not to mention it's also flamebait so the OP gets a "twofer" for posting it.

[Prefer]

38. Way to demonstrate your point

You have made accusations against me - does that mean the burden of proof is on you?

If so, then why do you continue to smear me?

[Prefer]

36. My continualy missing of this information

was the basis of my selection of title.

And hopefully you understand my position relative to guys like Spitzer and Jefferson, although I am still not decided on Jefferson. The scenario I have imagined is that the Feds approach Wm. Jefferson and get his cooperation to "take this bribe so we can get this guy" and then he plays along, and they get him along with the briber.

I must not be the only one who missed this info, so helpfully the post helps others understand these relatively buried details.

[eShirl]

39. actually, you do seem to be the only one continually missing the information

I'm not sure why

[Prefer]

40. It's Because I am a Freper

Here is another flamebait thread from me where I stealthly attack Air America and try to get rid of its flagship host in favor of the inferior Sam Seder.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3072814

Yep, you're on to me. Drat. I guess I'll get Tombstoned now, since I am a secret disruptor. I guess my hundreds of progressive statements were really an insidious trick.

:sarcasm:

[Pastiche423]

42. For the past three months

there has been at least one post about Don's case EVERY SINGLE DAY HERE IN GD.

The only way you could have missed one, is for you not to read this board in three months.

Your feigned innocense doesn't wash.

Former Governor Don Siegelman is innocent of all charges.

Get it now? Maybe you should write it down so that you will remember this time.

[librechik]

37. Dozens of REPUBLICANS in Alabama did exactly the same thing without being prosecuted

it was a partisan hit job.

Period.