Siegelman blasts DOJ as he faces more years in prison.

[madfloridian]

I say he should blast away. It is time to rid the DOJ of the Bush holdovers. It is time for Holder to stop worrying about letting all the Republicans out free and clear and investigate this case.

From Huffington Post:

Siegelman Blasts DoJ and Judge In 'Final' Reply Seeking Hearing

Facing a sentence of 20 additional years in prison recommended by Bush Justice Department holdovers, former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman finally took off the gloves Sept. 21 against his prosecutors and the judge -- and, for once, skipped any mention of Karl Rove.

Citing new evidence since his 2006 convictions, Siegelman's nine-page filing called for a hearing with cross-examination, plus a new trial and new judge.

The arguments responded to a government filing on Aug. 28 that no new evidence has arisen since Siegelman's 2006 corruption convictions to justify a hearing or other relief.

More generally, Siegelman's prosecution remains the dramatic centerpiece of still-unsolved allegations that the Bush administration mounted a nationwide effort to change the country's political leadership by hundreds of disputed prosecutions of Democratic office-holders, candidates and contributors. Siegelman's case is key because no other has produced so many whistleblowers and investigative reporters alleging scandals. But so far no watchdog institutions have put any of the alleged miscreants under oath for public cross-examination.

For the first time, Siegelman unloaded directly on the government's top prosecutors against him in Washington and Alabama by suggesting that they oppose a hearing because they fear evidence of their own crimes for obstructing justice.

This administration has been too complacent about this case. It goes back to the same philosophy of not wanting to investigate the Bush administration...the same mindset.

Top Dems say keep harmony, protect Bush. Don Siegelman says "give me a break."

Cass Sunstein, an adviser to Barack Obama from the University of Chicago Law School, cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct from the current Administration. Prosecuting government officials risks a "cycle" of criminalizing public service, he argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton--or even the "slight appearance" of it. Update: Sunstein emailed to emphasize that he also said and believes that "egregious crimes should not be ignored."

...""Give me a break," responded former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, when told about Sunstein's advice during an interview with The Nation. Siegelman took a court-sanctioned trip to tell attendees about his conviction for corruption, currently on appeal, which he says was motivated by a malicious Republican effort to destroy his career. Discussing alleged White House abuse of the Justice Department, which led to Alberto Gonzales' resignation, Siegelman said "what Karl Rove has been accused of doing would make Watergate look like child's play." The former governor also urged activists to press Congress to hold Rove in contempt for defying a House subpoena in a related investigation. His supporters have launched an Internet campaign, ContemptforRove.org, to advance the cause.

Governor Don Siegelman must not be allowed to go back to prison with a Democratic administration in control.

His courage and hope and finances must now be stretched to the limit. It is wrong.

[imdjh]

1. I tend to agree with the hesitance to "criminalizing public service" but would be way OK with doing

.... Rove. Rove wasn't serving the public.

[wroberts189]

2. knr

[GodlyDemocrat]

3. Holder didn't get the memo that Democrats like Siegelman and Blagojevich are higher than the law

Dope!

[madfloridian]

4. Don't compare the two men, please.

Siegelman's case is quite different.

[GodlyDemocrat]

7. No it's not, both solicited campaign contributions as a quid pro quo

You can't do that. Holder would have reversed if there was impropeiety in pursuing this case. Siegelman is just trying to garner support using political rhetoric.

[madfloridian]

8. No, Siegelman did not do that.

You seem unaware, do some research.

[GodlyDemocrat]

10. I have.

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

I'll concede that the sentencing is excessive. However, that testifies to the flawed nature of our federal sentencing guidelines, and not to the integrity of the convictions themselves.

[madfloridian]

13. I won't argue with you. I will back off after suggesting wiki is not the best source.

Looks like 3 have already paid a price for speaking up, so I will not argue.

Cuts down on real discussion though.

[GodlyDemocrat]

14. Without naming names, only 1 had paid the price two times for profanity laced tirades

(On edit, it was not three times, it was two.)

Trust me, it did not add to the discussion.

Your point on Wikipedia is generally a fair one, though it is a good place to get a summary of information on a great variety of issues. I had read the Don Siegelman article and have kept up with it after the allegations of bias came to the forefront in 2008.

Anywho, thank you for respectful discussion even when we may disagree.

[Hissyspit]

16. Again, respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about.

And the reason people are cussing at you is because you make yourself suspect in their eyes when post something suspiciously like KRl Rove's talking points. You can alert on others as is your right (I didn't see the contents of the deleted posts), but it does not change the fact that you are sadly underinformed.

As early as over two years ago dozens and dozens of current and former AGs signed petitions that there was no quid pro quo in Siegelman's case.

Start with the Tamara Grimes interview from last week and read all the other links I gave you. To claim the two cases as analagous past the surface (Dem govs) is beyond ludicrous at this point.

Here's some more:

Larisa Alexandrovna: Permanent Republican Majority: Part II

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/The_permanent_Republican_majority_Daughter_of_1127.html


The Paul Minor Case and it's Connection to Siegelman Case: "GOP 'Justice' In Alabama & Mississippi"

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/04/democratic-underground-connects-dots.html

“I’ve always thought that they were bad people with evil intent – and all that, it’s playing out now. You can’t hardly look at any aspect of the government in the seven years so far that’s been run properly.” – John Grisham, on the Bush Department of Justice (Des Moines Register)


Siegelman Prosecutors Received Notes from Jury

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/1/3/error_in_justice_siegelman_prosecutors_received_notes_from_jurors_during_deliberations/


Running Elections From The White House

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2483079&mesg_id=2483079

[Hissyspit]

21. Permanent Republican Majority - Part V:

Mississippi Justice: Bush US Attorney targeted my wife, supporters and friends

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Diaz_placeholder_0408.html

[Selena Harris]

98. Testimony in Ring trial exposes Mississippi and DOJ connection

National Journal OnlineSep 23, 2009 ... National Journal.com · Sign In · My Account | Free Trial · Submit site feedback · The Magazine · The Hotline · CongressDaily · 3121 ...
nationaljournal.com/ - 19 hours ago - Cached - Similar
_____________

Anyone interested in the Siegelman case needs to read the daily reports of the testimonies being given in the current trial involving Abramoff aide,Kevin Ring.

The last several days are exclusively centering on Mississippi ,Choctaws,and the DOJ "plant",Coughlin.

[midnight]

58. Good information Hissy.

[L. Coyote]

87. And, unrespectfully, what a load you're spreading! Do your reserarch first on DU!

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,670 from democraticunderground.com for Siegelman "L. Coyote"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&&q=Siegelman+%22L.+Coyote%22+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com

Political Prisoner Don Seigelman: Prosecutorial Obstruction of Justice in the Siegelman Case
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2208473

Some on DU know this issue better than I do, given Google
only turned up 6,670 hits with L. Coyote & Siegelman on DU :rofl:

[Hawkeye-X]

33. And EXACTLY how long have you been following Siegelman's case?

Inquiring minds wants to know.

I suspect you know NOTHING of this case. Zero. Nil. Naught. Zip.

So I'd suggest that you disseminate old posts discussing Siegelman's case before you open your big fat mouth.

Do NOT assume anything until you read the facts.

Siegelman is being persecuted by Rove's minions, and Holder is doing absolutely NOTHING about it. All he has to do is sign a piece of paper saying that Siegelman's case is to be dropped by the prosecutors and no further prosecution is warranted. Then order the arrest of one Karl "Not So Christian" Rove for political persecution, and illegal influence and tampering, obstruction of justice, and charges a 100,000 miles long.

Hawkeye-X

[GodlyDemocrat]

42. If you would have actually read my post instead of posting flamebait personal attacks

You would have found the answer.

[immoderate]

54. You call that a personal attack?

--imm :shrug:

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

18. A Panel About Rove and Bush's Selective Political Prosecution: THERE WAS NO CRIME

NO ONE besides Blagodjevich is arguing that he was selectively politically prosecuted. PLENTY of people with real knowledge and integrity are arguing that Siegelman was selectively politically prosecuted.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hissyspit/6925

The Legal Basis For Siegelman's Appeal To The Supreme Court:

How the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling in the Siegelman Case Puts Every Elected Official at Risk

The decision of the Eleventh Circuit panel creates serious dangers for every office holder, candidate and campaign contributor. It leaves every such person at risk that he or she will prosecuted for doing things that, up until now, were recognized as perfectly legal. It places awesome discretion in the hands of prosecutors, to seek convictions based not on what people do or say, but instead based in the end on those prosecutors' inferences about whether the official, candidate, or contributor had an inappropriate unspoken state of mind. Under this decision, if a prosecutor believes that there was an unspoken connection between a campaign or issue-advocacy contribution and an official action that benefits the contributor, there is a prosecutable crime; and if the jury believes that too, then a prison sentence follows. If the 11th Circuit decision stays on the books, every official who raises contributions, and everyone who is considering whether to contribute, will feel the chilling thought that an exercise of their First Amendment rights might be turned, in the eyes of a cynical prosecutor, into a crime.

The law in this area, as it had existed up until the 11th Circuit decision, was designed for the specific purpose of avoiding that chilling effect, avoiding undue prosecutorial discretion, and creating a bright line as to what is a crime and what is not, in the raising of campaign funds. This was what the Supreme Court accomplished in McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 111 S. Ct. 1807 (1991). There, the Supreme court recognized the realities that we all know to be true: that fundraising is a practical necessity in our democracy, and that contributors often hope that the officials to whom they contribute will then take some actions that the contributors favor. If that in itself were a crime, then every politician in the nation would be a criminal, and every contributor would be accomplice. So there must be some reliable way of differentiating the routine from the criminal.

The Supreme Court laid down the bright line in McCormick, and it was based fundamentally on the rule that a potential inference that there was an unspoken connection between contribution and official action is not enough to make a crime. Instead, said the Supreme Court, there is a crime "only if the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act. In such situations, the official asserts that his official conduct will be controlled by the terms of the promise or undertaking." The "explicit promise or undertaking" in exchange for the contribution - in other words, the explicit linking of the two by the official, or (as the Supreme Court also called it) an "explicit quid pro quo" - is what makes the crime.

Where officials line their personal pockets, they can be convicted of some crimes even without proof of an explicit quid pro quo. But when the purported pay-off is a campaign contribution, the law requires proof of an explicit agreement connecting the contribution and official action. "This formulation," said the Supreme Court, "defines the forbidden zone of conduct with sufficient clarity;" it allows officials to know the line between politics and crime, and allows them to know that they will be safe if they do not cross it.

But the 11th Circuit panel decision has erased the bright line that the Supreme Court drew, and has created uncertainty where the Supreme Court had tried to bring clarity. According to the 11th Circuit when the Supreme Court required proof of an "explicit quid pro quo," of an "explicit promise or undertaking" by which the official "asserts" that he will act in exchange for this contribution, this did not mean that the official "asserts" that has to say any such thing at all. It is enough, in the eyes of the 11th Circuit panel, if a jury can infer that there was an unspoken connection between the contribution and a conclusion by declaring that in this context the word "explicit" does not really mean "express," and does not mean that the quid pro quo must actually be overtly communicated at all. The decision allows a conviction based on prosecutors', and jurors' inferences about unspoken states of mind supposedly linking official action and campaign contributions.

Other federal appellate courts, by contrast, have recognized that McCormick means Exactly what it says. They have recognized that an "explicit quid pro quo" really does have to be "explicit" in order to constitute a crime, and that in this context "explicit" means "express," just as it always does. See, e.g., United States v. Ganim, 510 F.3d 134, 142 (2nd Cir. 2007) ("proof of an express promise is necessary when the payments are made in the form of campaign contributions"); United States v. Kincaid-Chauncey, 556 F.3d 923, 937 (9th Cir. 2009) (same).

Until the 11th Circuit panel decision is overruled, the law is now dangerously unclear. Now, no official, candidate, or contributor can feel confident in his or her exercise of his or her legal (and constitutional) right to raise or contribute funds. Now, whenever a cynical prosecutor comes to believe that there was an unspoken exchange - an implicit linkage between a campaign contribution and a legislative vote, or an appointment to a paid or unpaid governmental position, or any other sort of official action - indictment may follow. It is extremely important that the law should be clarified and uniform all over the country on these important questions, and that the true McCormick standard should continue to apply. This is important not only to achieving justice in this one case, but for the sake of all who are involved in elections and democracy.

54 state attorneys general, both Republicans and Democrats, told the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals: "Such an interpretation puts at risk every politician who accepts a campaign contribution ... criminalizing activities that fall short of an explicit quid pro quo agreement, can only lead to an impermissible chilling effect on the First Amendment right to contribute to political campaigns." (See page 10 Brief of Amici Curiae of Former Attorneys General in Support of Appellant Don Eugene Siegelman Urging Reversal.)

[madfloridian]

31. Thanks for all your links. I was going to search but it was too late last night

and I decided not to bother. I know you have been right on top of this issue.

Good links and good posts...thanks for that.

[L. Coyote]

91. Thanks for injecting a large dose of reason here.

And this is but the tip of the iceberg in Siegelman's defense.

Siegelman's main problem is just how slick the criminals in public service are!
And the fact that Obama and Holder seem to not want to change that!!!!

[trof]

23. Apparently you didn't read the whole wiki entry very carefully.

Scroll down and read the whole thing.
It truly makes the case for a political hit job.

[EFerrari]

39. That wiki entry isn't even accurate. He should never have been brought to trial

let alone convicted let alone sentenced.

[Enthusiast]

53. The convictions have no integrity.

Your stance is very curious considering that you call yourself a Democrat.

[GodlyDemocrat]

71. Do you call Holder and Obama Democrats?

Because my position is the same as theirs. Perhaps you mistake the Democratic Party for the Corruption without Consequences Party.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Time for change]

95. Ok, where does it say that he

"solicited campaign contributions as a quid pro quo"?

Is what you mean to say that he was convicted of bribery? Do you believe that convictions can be fraudulent?

There is no evidence that Siegelman accepted a bribe.

[BlueJac]

97. My guess is the machine is still in place, or the Dems lack a sack.

[dotymed]

104. If I am not mistaken,

Siegleman was sent to prison for appointing a donor to an
unpaid, humanitarian position. This is "quid pro
quo?" The position this donor was appointed to, wasn't a
position that would even allow him to be bribed to influence
the choosing of vendors. I really do not recall al of the
minutiae, but I asked myself those questions when I read about
the case. Mainly, I wanted to make sure that this donor
couldn't be financially enriched due to his appointment to an
unpaid position.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

15. No, Siegelman didn't.

That's the whole point. You don't know what you are talking about. The Siegelman case is part of the DoJ attornies scandal and Rove's attempt at a permanent Republican majority. Please do some REAL research:


Larisa Aleaxandrovna at HuffPost: The Permanent Republican Majority, Part 1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/the-permanent-republican-_b_74384.html


Larisa Alexandrovna on Rove's Role In the Political Prosecution of Gov. Siegelman (Good background interview, that is NOT wikipedia crap)

http://blog.buzzflash.com/interviews/111


Andrew Krieg On DoJ Whistleblower Tamara Grimes

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hissyspit/7048


91 Ex-Attorneys General Support Siegelman Appeal to Supreme Court

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20090911/NEWS/90911047/Ex-attorneys+general+support+Siegelman+s+appeal+&referrer=LATEST


60 Minutes: Siegelman - What Next?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3996870n%3Fsource=search_video


The above is just for STARTERS. The two cases are nothing like each other except that they involve Democrat governors.

More on the misconduct in the trial is available at Harper's Magazine on line but the server seems to be down. Google Scott Horton.

[Kingofalldems]

109. kick

[druidity33]

17. bullshit

What Siegelman got busted for is what politicians have been doing for centuries. It's called Patronage and it's not illegal. Did bu$h get busted for giving all those Big Oil folk jobs? Or for sending his supporters out as Diplomats?

:eyes:

[Hissyspit]

19. There was no quid pro quo.

There was however jury tampering, a corrupt judge, selective political prosecution, a house burned down, an office broken into.
Break-ins plague targets of US Attorneys

Larisa Alexandrovna, Muriel Kane and Lindsay Beyerstein

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Breakins_plague_Justice_Department_whistleblowers_0430.html


Gee, Holder can't POSSIBLY be wrong about something?

That's quite naive.

Holder's Former Law Firm Brags About Its GOP Ties

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6337475

[midnight]

57. Wow. You really need to site a source for that opinion. I have

not read that one and hopefully not likely too!

[Jim Sagle]

69. That's ANOTHER goddamn lie. There was no quid pro quo.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Correct. Siegelman has been convicted by a jury, Blagojevich has not (as least not yet).

[Hissyspit]

30. Um, you mean the totally corrupted selective political prosecution jury trial?

Positing Blagojevich and Siegelman as equivalent situations is ignorant.

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. The issues you have raised have yet to be proven in court

[midnight]

59. I believe that is the purpose of the appeal, and I believe it is being

blocked.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L. Coyote]

92. Galileo was convicted.

Each era has its heresey and its form of burning heretics.

Under the Bush Junta, Heresy is opposing Big Oil.

Alabama Court Bows to ExxonMobil = Siegelman: ExxonMobil committed fraud and underpaid
Alabama Court Bows to ExxonMobil
by Scott Horton - November 2007

ExxonMobil’s Alabama Paydirt

Back in 1904, Ida Tarbell published what ultimately was to be seen as the seminal work of the muckrakers, The History of Standard Oil. ....

.... Exxon and Mobil, merged at the close of 1999. The resulting behemoth, ExxonMobil, is the largest publicly traded integrated petroleum and natural gas company in the world. It is also the world’s largest petroleum and natural gas company by revenue, with revenues of $377.6 billion in fiscal year 2006.

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. ..........

[Freddie Stubbs]

107. Galileo was guilty

He was charged with heresy, as he was espousing a view which was in contradiction to Church doctrine. He was later absolved when the Church changed its doctrine.

For the analogy to be apt, you would be conceding that that Mr. Siegelman is guilty, but that someday the government may decide to end its prohibition on bribery and mail fraud.

[L. Coyote]

108. The analogy is not guilt, it is state prosecution for a heresy!

When the State prosecutes "heretics" the concept of guilt is rather meaningless since the crime is in the mind of the accusor.

Gov. Siegelman's heresy was not joining the criminals and not allowing Big Oil to rip off his state!

His "burning at the stake" (or his "house arrest" since you insist on perfect analogy) was having his election stolen and, when he again sought re-election, persecution by criminal prosecution and the Big House.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Merlot]

6. They're either higher than kites, or above the law

not that either of them have anything in common besides being democrats.

[Festivito]

20. The two cases you mention don't relate to each other.

The Siegelman case involves lawyers from across the country gathering to point to the injustice done to him. Blagovich... not so much, not like that at all.

The list of differences is long and stunning.

If anyone seems above the law here, it is the Republicans in the form of prosecutors, governors, and Bush administrators like suddenly-can't-recall-much Rove. How many Democrats do you know that avoid subpoenas?

Many in this country have lost their wealth, housing, retirements, and that immense wealth is now in the hands of a few top Republican supporters. Think about that, unless you are one of those top billionaires.

[mod mom]

22. You obviously are uninformed on the Siegelman case, so you might want to study up

before embarrassing yourself! :eyes:

[Jim Sagle]

68. That's a goddamn lie. Siegelman did no such thing.

[DUlover2909]

75. Whatever.

:puke:

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueJac]

96. Get your facts right....

[defendandprotect]

11. There has to be a lot of power and corruption holding this thing in place . . . like cement . . .!!!

We have to break this up --

How in the hell can Obama leave Bush's people in place -- !!!



:eyes:

[madfloridian]

12. If Siegelman is allowed to go back to prison

as Karl Rove gets adored by the media and gets to debate with Democrats...

And as the score started out with Holder freeing Ted Stevens.

Republicans 4 Democrats 0. Two Alaskan Republicans released from prison.

The Obama Justice Department already has dismissed cases or appeals against Stevens and alleged Republican phone jammer James Tobin. Kohring and Kott make four Republicans who have received favorable treatment since Obama took office in January. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Don Siegelman in Alabama and Paul Minor in Mississippi have received no known reviews of their cases.

If you are keeping score at home, it's now Republicans 4, Democrats 0 under the Obama DOJ.

Then it will make many of us feel that justice was not served for political reasons.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. President Obama could pardon him or commute the sentence

[Hissyspit]

28. Or Holder could do the right thing.

Since Obama has not cleaned up the DoJ, what makes you think a pardon or commutation would be forthcoming? You are factually correct, but why should it have to come down to that? Stevens didn't have to wait for a pardon?

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Perhaps Holder and Obama do not believe there was any proctorial abuse in this case

How else would you explain their actions?

[Gabi Hayes]

62. did this case involve some sort of test supervision, or a doctor spectializing in a certain

part of the anatomoy with which you seem to be much more familiar than the English language????

gives your opinion lots of cred.....

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glitch]

26. It will add to our shame. nt

[Kingofalldems]

52. But no, he was convicted by a jury. And Karl would never do anything

dishonest. :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabbycat31]

29. this calls for a Presidential pardon from Obama

[madfloridian]

32. IMO this shows the power of Karl Rove and his years of research on Democrats

and other opponents. I think they are tippytoeing carefully because they fear him.

[Joe Chi Minh]

34. K&R

[librechik]

35. Please Attorney General Holder. Do the right thing and get Sigelman out of legal jeopardy

for doing what his Republican predecessor did several times with no penalty whatsoever.
This is local corruption. Stop it like you stopped the Steven's case.

[madfloridian]

36. 91 Former Attorneys General Claim Siegelman Didn't Break the Law

http://www.abc3340.com/news/stories/0909/658479.html

"Montgomery - Ninety-one former attorneys general from U.S. states and territories asked the U.S. Supreme Court Friday to hear former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman's appeal of his federal bribery conviction, claiming it raises important issues on political speech.

The bipartisan group filed a brief arguing that it wasn't against the law for Siegelman to name former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to a powerful hospital regulatory board after Scrushy arranged donations to Siegelman's campaign for a state lottery.

If Siegelman's conviction stands, the group argues it could have a paralyzing effect on the political process, "that largely depends upon private contributions and the liberty of constituents to contribute to political campaigns without fear of criminal liability."

"This case concerns the criminalization of conduct protected by the First Amendment - the giving and receiving of campaign contributions," the brief said."

[QC]

38. When Holder is finished turning loose every Republican crook in the country,

then he might have time to get around to this case.

Maybe.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

47. Thank you for saying this.

[QC]

48. His handling of the Siegelman case truly is a disgrace. n/t

[Mithreal]

40. K&R nt

[Uncle Joe]

43. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.

[winyanstaz]

44. It is time to hold Obama to keeping his promises....

and for Congress to do their job..and most of all..for the Justice Department to do their frikkin job and investigate these criminals!!!

[snort]

45. Siegelman

ought to scoot, as in vamoose.

[Selena Harris]

46. This was about keeping gambling out of Alabama

McCain Withheld Controversial Abramoff EmailFeb 25, 2008 ... On the stump, Sen. John McCain often cites his work tackling the excesses of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff as evidence of his sturdy ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../mccain-withheld-controver_n_88304.html - Cached - Similar

McCain Withheld Controversial Abramoff Email - Democratic UndergroundFeb 26, 2008 ... McCain Withheld Controversial Abramoff Email Posted by Michael Link on February 25, 2008 at 06:04 PM Breaking at the Huffington Post: ...
www.democraticunderground.com/.../duboard.php?az...all... - Cached - Similar

McCain and Team Have Many Ties to Gambling ...‎
Jack Abramoff: John McCain's other Lobbyist ...‎
HORTON on mccain, Abramoff and the Riley ...‎
McCain's Abramoff investigation was 'pure ...‎

More results from democraticunderground.com »

[Octafish]

51. Ralph Reed's beedy little eyes sparkle at the sight of Abramoff money...

...and he sings, "Hallelujah! Pass the loot!"

Freed from Jail, Fmr. Alabama Governor Don Siegelman Accuses Karl Rove of Orchestrating Political Witch Hunt

PS: A most hearty welcome to DU, Selena Harris!

[Selena Harris]

65. Thank you

Octafish, you are one of the "Ascended Masters" here at DU,imho.

I always look for your comments,because I know I'll be better informed AFTER I read them than I was BEFORE I read them.

[Selena Harris]

66. Abramoff Aide on trial

Incidentally, Kevin Ring,one of Abramoff's cronies- an aide to Ashcroft-- is presently on trial.

The trial began last week,and thousands of documents have been provided in discovery-yet nary a word in the media.

The National Journal website is doing coverage,however.Coincidentally enough,many of the Congressman listed in Ring's court exhibits are the SAME politicians named in Sibel Edmonds recent deposition.

[Dinger]

49. KNR (nt)

[Octafish]

50. Bush and Gonzo left a giant stay-behind network at Justice.

The sooner they are identified, fired and labeled as traitors, the sooner ours will again be a nation of law.

[rhett o rick]

81. Pres Obama doesn't seem to be in a hurry to clean that mess up. nt

[midnight]

84. I agree. I wish they would get moving.

[BolivarianHero]

55. If Obama's administration will not protect Siegelman from right-wing persecution...

Why do you feel that you're safe?

[midnight]

56. Didn't Obama just say that bush and cia was not above the law

in the torture investigation going forward. Why is this case being shut down? This needs to be opened up. This is not justice.

[GodlyDemocrat]

72. Because neither is Siegelman above the law

[L. Coyote]

88. IGNORE.

Bye.............

[GodlyDemocrat]

103. Same to you buddy

Congrats, you're the first person I'm putting on my ignore list.

[Usrename]

60. That's not even a funny statement. It just isn't funny at all.

"egregious crimes should not be ignored"


All we know about are crimes against humanity, torture, murder, obstruction of justice, fraud...


nothing egregious here, I suppose


:banghead:

[sabrina 1]

61. Cass Sunstein is a jerk

He and his ilk are the reason why we have two systems of justice in this country, one for the powerful and one for the voiceless.

He needs to go as do all who do not believe in justice and this administration, which had no problem letting GOP Sen. Stevens off the hook, needs to start demonstrating that we supported was not just more of the same kind of justice we had under Republicans iow 'IOKIYAR.

What was his rationale for the Stevens' case? The main difference I see (tainted trial in both cases) is that Stevens is a Republican and Siegelman is Democrat.

[bertman]

63. Since Sunstein is interested in not risking a "cycle" of criminalizing public service"

why don't we let him volunteer to pull the TWENTY FUCKING YEAR PRISON SENTENCE that he apparently feels Don Siegelman should pull for being railroaded.

With Democrats like Sunstein who needs Bush holdovers!!??

More bipartisanship and it makes me want to puke.

Recommend.

[DeeDeeNY]

67. YES

Perfectly stated!

[rasputin1952]

64. The simple amswer...if crimes were committed, they should

be prosecuted. Using a political office to persecute others is a crime, plain and simple. The perpetrators, (read bushites), should be held accountable. There is no excuse and full investigation should be authorized. We should NOT allow such corruption, regardless of party; this happens to be R's that would be investigated, if D's did the same thing, I'd be calling for their heads as well. We are supposedly a "NAtion of Law", let's show the world that we truly are.

No matter how high an investigation would go, it should proceed, and those who did what they did held accountable...how else could we address the problem, hide it, that's worse than anything other option.

:patriot:

[MasonJar]

70. I am not going to argue with anyone who says Siegelman got a fair trial

because such an allegation is so far off base as to be worth contacting the monitors. Rove is close friends with the AG's husband; the judge had or has multi-million dollar contracts with the US government, the Attorneys-General of Alabama (through one of their husbands) were heard conspiring against Siegelman, there was jury tampering of sorts, Governor Siegelman won re-election but after a Gore/Florida type voter fraud debacle was found to have lost the next day, The list goes on and on. I am not going to bother to post links to these assertions because they have been common knowledge for months; the reports are legion and easy to locate and document unless your news source is FAUX NEWS. Do your homework. So many Attorneys-General, past and present, and judges have sent letters insisting on Holder's investigating the fraudulent trial perpetrated against Governor Siegelman that for Holder not to follow through is beyond belief and conscience. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but there has to be some truly venal reason. for this obvious omission of justice on Holder's part. Someone in the WH is paid off; the Rovians have something on Obama from their wiretappings; Obama and his family are being threatened; Obama is secretly a GOPer. I do NOT know what it is, but they are now culpable for sending this man back to prison now if they do nothing because the proof of mistreatment and malfeasance of justice is all there. It is a sidebar to not investigating war crimes, which by treaty obligations we, the USA, are required to do.

[OnyxCollie]

73. K&R for Don Siegelman. nt

[elleng]

77. Permitting Governor Siegelman to return to prison

may be the only thing that would cause me to be anti-Prez O. I went to law school to prevent such things from happening, and I just couldn't stand it.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

85. I was wondering why

Don Siegelman has been going through torure all this time while watching Tom DeLay dancing with a star. Now THAT'S a criminal.

:mad:

[L. Coyote]

90. Nothing to wonder about. Who controls Justice in the USA?

Obviously, Bush's USAs!

I'm still wwaiting to hear back from the Bush appointees about evidence I have offered them.

[L. Coyote]

89. Criminals IN public service vs. "criminalizing public service"

The way to avoid the criminalization of public service is to procesute ciminals IN public service!!!

D'oh! :rofl: Wake UP Holder and Obama. Become leaders, not wimps!!

[madfloridian]

93. Somewhere in this mess, I missed this about Tamarah Grimes, the whistleblower.

I am sure it has been covered here at DU, but I somehow missed the fact that she was fired in June.

http://estrinlegaled.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/09/doj-paralegal-whistleblower-dissed-dismissed-exclusive-interview.html

"In July 2007, Grimes stepped forward to allege that her colleagues had violated basic legal protections to ensure a fair trial. She claimed, for example, that prosecutors had communicated with jurors. Also, she said pro-conviction jurors had privately strategized by email outside the jury room to obtain guilty verdicts -- all without required notification to the defense. Moreover, she complained of sexually offensive comments by colleagues, particularly in an off-site prosecutors’ office that was entirely devoted to what they called “The Big Case.”

Even though she used federally authorized procedures for such complaints, stepping forward turned her career dream into a nightmare. What follows is her story, including a year of federal threats to prosecute her on what she calls false claims that she taped a colleague.

"I have always considered myself to be a moderate Republican,” she said. “I believe in the U.S. Constitution, and that what happened in Montgomery with the Siegelman/Scrushy prosecution is a travesty of justice."

June 1, 2009, she wrote the Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder outlining misconduct allegations and asking for his help. But DoJ fired her seven days later for failure to retain a security clearance – which DoJ itself had removed in 2008. At the same time, she was regarded elsewhere as one of the nation’s leading whistleblowers for shedding light on the Siegelman conviction, which has become the most controversial criminal prosecution of the entire Bush administration.

“I did nothing to justify termination,” she told KNOW. “I was a loyal, exemplary employee with no discipline problems and many performance-based awards prior to my complaints.”

[JohnWxy]

94. Dammit - when is the Obama administration going to do something about this?

[debbierlus]

99. thanks for posting - this is outrageous

[XXXMADAM]

101. kick

http://www.whorunsgov.com/User:xxxMadam

[lobodons]

102. NOTE TO OBAMA:

PARDON!!!!!!

[EagleViewDC]

105. Author Thanks & Comment on Siegelman Replies

As author of the Siegelman article, I want to thank everyone
for such a great discussion -- far exceeding that anywhere
else. A few more thoughts: Siegelman and his co-defendant
deserve a hearing with right to cross-examine witnesses and a
new judge. That would then mean a new trial. Then let the
chips fall where they may. But there's almost no chance that
Siegelman and his co-defendant would be convicted again in a
fair trial in my view. So the remedy is obvious.  By contrast,
a pardon would be a controversial political intervention in
the justice system, and also unfair to Siegelman's
co-defendant (who is serving a 7-year term). Those seeking
more documentation about any of the underlying scandals can
find much of it on my site (www.eagleviewdc.com) although the
continuing revelations now make a site a bit out of date.
Thanks again for this great discussion on Democratic
Underground! Please consider prompting it elsewhere to alert
new audiences, including the comments section of local
newspapers that largely ignore the story of selective
prosecutions like Siegelman and the parallels in other cases
around the U.S. I'll be among those documenting the other
cases in future reports shortly about the impact of the
"loyal Bushies" on lives and families around the
U.S. As Paul Krugman wrote when the U.S. attorney scandal
broke in early 2007, the issue isn't about nine mid-term
firings -- but about what the other 84 were doing to keep
their jobs.   

[Kingofalldems]

106. Good luck to you! Keep up the good work

True Democrats back you 100%. Only republicans want the Governor put back in jail. Unfortunately you can read at least one repub posting on this thread, and this site is supposed to be for Democrats only.

[madfloridian]

110. Thanks for your work on this.

Many here at DU have tried to keep a spotlight on it. I was glad to read that 91 former attorneys general were speaking out now.

It stuns me how this has been ignored by the AG.

Welcome to DU.

[earcandle]

111. It is hard for me to believe this is unresolved when Stevens from Alaska was pardoned.

Holder. what is holding you?