Showing posts with label Don Siegelman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Don Siegelman. Show all posts

Jun 1, 2018

Pardoning Rod Blagojevich and Martha Stewart Is Just; Should Proceed Post Haste

Fundraiser A: My Fight for Freedom and
Justice

(Northern Illinois University Press, 2015)
by Robert Blagojevich

The federal judiciary, 'a system allowing brutal treatment as a matter of course'


Here we are in the 21rst century, and all the fears of Robert Jackson's The Federal Prosecutor address delivered in 1940 have come true, (U.S. DoJ, Robert H. Jackson Center).

Federal prosecutors and U.S. attorneys have turned their offices en masse into cruel machines to destroy lives to further their careers—seeking lucrative shareholder positions in private practice and cushy federal judgeships.

Pres Donald Trump announced this week he is considering pardons of Rod Blagojevich and Martha Stewart.

Good.

He should commence full pardons (and a commutation) of both with haste.

The indictments and prosecutions of Blagojevich, (and his brother Robert), and Stewart are miscarriages of justice and exemplify the nihilistic direction to which federal prosecutors have driven our country in their frenzied quest of careerism, and damn the victims.

The weight of the federal government against an individual is heartless, arguably inhuman.

Now, it's a perfectly reasonable position to doubt the motives of Trump in these actions. So what?

An expansion of the presidential pardon power is needed and if Trump follows through on these pardons, I salute and lift a glass.

To begin with Don Siegelman and Wisconsin veteran Keith Roberts should both be pardoned immediately. President Obama did pass on pardoning both of these innocents victims of the federal judiciary pursued by odious United States attorneys in Alabama and Wisconsin.

Below is a Foreword to Fundraiser A: My Fight for Freedom and Justice on the Blagojevich prosecutions. It's a look into a nightmare.

By Leonard L. Cavise

The trial of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his brother Robert was national news. In Chicago, it was daily headline news. It was the latest in a series of “trials of the century,” especially for Illinoisans who were about to see the third of their last four governors go to jail for corruption. I watched the trial at relatively close range because, as a law professor, I was using the trial in my classes and, as a frequent media commentator, I had to distill what happened into manageable sound bites or brief commentary. When Robert told me he was writing this book I was thrilled, not only because of the enticing prospect of getting to know what really happened, but also because of the important social interest served by a close-up look at what many saw as a federal abuse of power in the criminal justice system. The government’s prosecution of Robert was in all senses wrongful but, nonetheless, prosecutors tenaciously pursued charges long after it was obvious that Robert was innocent. The arrogance of that use of power is a central theme of this book.

In Fundraiser A, we now get the story in dramatic and sometimes riveting fashion from the defendant himself. As Robert told the media after the verdict, “I have lived through the most surreal experience anyone could live through. This has been, from the beginning, a slow bleed both financially, emotionally, and otherwise.” After reading Robert’s complete story, I found him to be an astute if sometimes flabbergasted observer who still doesn’t quite believe this happened to him and his family. The criminal justice system in this country is flawed, and the power given to prosecutors is excessive. There’s nothing new in those observations, but to really understand why this happened to Robert is simple: it’s the story of over-reaching prosecutorial power and the adversarial system gone bad.

Chicago has certainly seen its share of circus-like trials, but this one promised to be the best, even without any dead bodies. Right from the day the US attorney announced the indictment, he promised a story of corruption that would “make Lincoln roll over in his grave.” We all waited for the smoking guns, the stories of drugs, sex, lies, and greed sure to come.

While the governor was talking on tape (forty-five days’ worth of tape), his main advisors—John Wyma, Chris Kelly, Bob Greenlee, John Harris, and Alonzo Monk—were talking directly to the government because they had legal problems of their own. Chiefs of staff, advisors, and deputy governors—colleagues who had worked closely with Rod for years—were the witnesses the government intended to use to supplement the tapes. Some would be offered legal immunity in exchange for their testimony against Blagojevich, some would start talking right away to save their own skin, and one would be sent back to the Blagojevich campaign headquarters to spy.

Dropped into this maelstrom and soon to become an important part of this story was Robert Blagojevich, the conservative Republican businessman from Tennessee who, to many observers, always seemed to be an innocent in a den of predators. The governor had asked Robert to raise funds for four months before the 2010 off-year elections. Robert had no political experience, didn’t really know anybody in Illinois, didn’t have a very good relationship with his brother, and didn’t like his brother’s “too liberal and fiscally irresponsible” politics, but, nonetheless, said he would do it. Why? This is a question he continues to ask himself. Because Rod needed somebody he could trust? Because he hoped to repair a strained relationship? Because, as a businessman, he knew about money and could keep the accounts? In any event, he left behind his wife, home, and business in Tennessee to come to Chicago to do something he had never done before—fundraise for a politician.

Why Robert agreed to step into a campaign already known to be under investigation is another judgment for the reader to make. Conventional wisdom would mandate treating the governor at a very long arm’s length. But this was his brother. And for the next year Robert was at the heart of the biggest corruption case in many years. Now, with this book, we find out all the behind-the-scenes action. As he notes in his trial journal, “As a citizen, I can’t believe this is still happening to me, and no one in power cares—unchecked unrestricted power.”

Robert Blagojevich was surprisingly naïve about the FBI, the federal prosecutors, and the criminal justice system. He thought he could just sit down with the FBI and clear this whole thing up and be back on his way. Didn’t they know that it was just Rod talking and talking? It never crossed his mind that the feds might attempt to use him, to make him flip and testify against his brother. It never occurred to him that maybe he and the governor would plead guilty to something in a “package” deal. It never occurred to him that nobody in the government really cared that he was innocent. This case was too big for that. Luckily, Robert found the right criminal defense lawyer who told him, in no uncertain terms, that this trial is not about “clearing anything up.” It’s a war, led by “self-righteous, zealot extremists,” and, Robert, you’re in it.

This is what happens to almost everybody who enters the criminal justice system for the first time—guilty or innocent. The government speaks, and everything changes. The government uses its vast power and unlimited resources, and the defendant bleeds. Financial ruin is almost a certainty. Robert Blagojevich spent over three-quarters of a million dollars on his defense. As he said, while describing the loss of his business and his home, “we were essentially in the process of dismantling thirty years of hard work.” He’s lucky he had the money.

Most defendants can’t make bond like Robert did. Most lose their jobs, possessions, and sometimes their families into the black abyss of seeking justice. Many eventually go to prison—African Americans more than others—where they face so much more than tangible loss. The loss of dignity and freedom, the utter humiliation, the loss of self-respect. Robert was spared that disaster, but he tells us how it was constantly on his mind and how his brother never seemed to think about it.

Robert learned more than he ever wanted to know about the criminal justice system. He learned that more than 95 percent (depending on the jurisdiction) of all defendants plead guilty. Only an infinitesimal 4–5 percent choose to fight back. He was shocked to learn that in no way was it to be a fair fight. The government decides whom

He learned that a jury of peers is a group of people with whom you have little in common, who are placed in judgment of you by a judge who asks most of the questions and then tells them about law they probably can’t understand. He learned that, while the Supreme Court was considering whether a “theft of honest services” charge (one of the charges pending in this case) is unconstitutionally vague, the prosecutor can just strike preemptively and file more charges in a superseding indictment so that whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides, it won’t make any difference.

He learned that when something good for the defense showed up in the tapes, his lawyers couldn’t use it unless the judge said they could, and the judge was prosecution-minded. People don’t realize that the judge who presides over a case—the largest percentage of whom are former prosecutors themselves—effectively decides how the case will progress. Robert tells us of how perturbed he was about many of the judge’s rulings, in addition to the judge’s habit of usually being forty-five minutes late for the start of court, which Robert estimates cost him $15,000 in attorney time.

One of the biggest surprises to Robert was that the criminal trial is a shell game. Neither side knows what the other is going to do. Are they going to call this particular witness, and, if so, when, to say what, and what will the judge allow on cross-examination? To be fair, the defense plays the same game—not telling the government if the defendant will testify or even if there will be a defense. And Robert watched, often comparing the process to his life in business. If he had gone to business meetings with as little definite information about what would be on the agenda, he would have considered himself woefully unprepared.

Robert’s layman’s eye gives us a fresh, honest, and forthright perspective on the inner workings of one of the most complex and high-profile criminal cases in recent memory. That’s what is so refreshing about this book. I have since met Robert on more than one occasion. He has lectured to my classes. He is an utterly believable but now thoroughly angry citizen who wants nothing more now than to tell America how unfairly he was treated by a system that allows such brutal treatment as a matter of course.#

- Excerpted from Fundraiser A: My Fight for Freedom and Justice ​by Robert Blagojevich with permission from Northern Illinois University Press. Copyright © 2015 Northern Illinois University Press.

May 21, 2015

Pardon Don Siegelman Now, What Is Obama Waiting For?

Don Siegelman outside an Atlanta courthouse
in an earlier appeal for a malicious prosecution. 
Image Glynn Wilson
America’s Political Prisoner #1

Karl Rove engineered several ridiculous prosecutions of Gov. Donald Siegelman (D-AL) who had the audacity of being elected governor of Alabama.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied Siegelman a new trial for the 2006 conviction of corruption charges, promised by Rove.

Few expect justice from Alabama or the 11th Circuit, but right now President Obama can grant a full pardon with a stroke of a pen.

For more information on this malicious prosecution and wrongful conviction, see Free Don Siegelman, and see the video below.

Obama fails as a president, as a human being, every moment Siegelman sits in federal prison in an incredible 78-month sentence for nothing.

One expects Karl Rove to work as human garbage, who knew Obama would join Rove in this enterprise?

Aug 8, 2009

To Kill Liberty's Outrage

Suspect we have all read or seen To Kill a Mockingbird.

Can great fiction bring intelligence to American society?

Today, when one's innocence and loss of liberty no longer naturally elicits outrage, one looks to fiction to understand the contemporary American political culture of throw 'em in jail and find common ground with the oppressors.

We need to get with the culture. Orwell and Camus don't play well in today's non-confrontational, mass incarceration times.

So Malcolm Gladwell considers Harper Lee, touching on the topic of wishy-washy liberalism vis a vis racism's assault against personal liberty in The New Yorker in his "Atticus Finch and the limits of Southern liberalism."

Gladwell reaches different conclusions than I would on the power of this comedy-drama to inform the political culture.

But if we were to take seriously the contemporary political discussion of taking away a person's liberty, we would be led to say to a Tom Robinson, 'You just need to find common ground and have a beer with the well-intentioned police officers of Alabama and the good citizenry they serve. And you're doing the right thing by not getting too uppity.'

As Bob Herbert reminds us, being innocent is no longer a defence. And that goes double for you: Don Siegelman, Georgia Thompson and Keith Roberts.

And don't be bringing up southern lynchings and Leo Frank. That's sooo last century.

Jul 22, 2009

Stand with Don Siegelman

A critical victim of a banana-republic political persecution fights on—Donald Siegelman, former governor of Alabama (1999 to 2003).

We need to stand with Donald Siegelman, a victim of Karl Rove and the Bush Department of Justice.

Siegelman was convicted in 2007 on a charge of being a successful Democrat in Alabama, though the official charges are bribery and mail fraud. It's utter bull shit.

As Lou Debose writes:

The 2002 Alabama gubernatorial election included the plot elements of a bad Southern Gothic: a Klan rally in the backwoods; a political operative stealing the opposition's signs and planting them at the rally; a lawyer stalking and photographing the operative; incriminating photos used to extort a political candidate; and a cabal of lawyers maneuvering a man into the courtroom of a judge who promised to ‘hang’ the defendant. There was even a prosecutor ‘messing up’ the case to see that the defendant made it to the gallows.
Make no mistake, this was a Bush-league, third-world prosecution.

Asks Brad Friedman, “How it's even possible that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman's bribery case and conviction has not long ago been dropped by the Dept. of Justice is beyond us?”
Good question. Friedman has a new piece up: New Evidence Reveals Feds 'Coached, Cajoled, Threatened' Star Witness in Siegelman Case.

To keep up with latest developments and what you can do to take action, please visit Donald Siegelman's site and stand with justice.

Writes Friedman:

In 2008, 52 former state attorneys-general, both Republican and Democratic, asked Congress to investigate the dubious prosecution of Siegelman. Last month, Karl Rove testified to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee behind closed doors, about this case, and others related to the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal. The information from that lengthy interview has not yet been released.

The government is required to file their brief in reply to Siegelman's new motion next week. He is currently free on probation, pending his ongoing appeal and now, potentially, new trial.

Mar 11, 2009

Where Justice Is a Game

The news last week that an innocent Alabama man who was subjected to a political prosecution by Karl Rove and his minions demonstrates well the state of the American justice system.

The American justice system is malfunctioning as the persecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman continues.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld most of the bribery and corruption against Siegelman who is without a doubt an innocent victim of a political prosecution.

We have seen too many political prosecutions in Wisconsin of the same corrupt nature during the Bush-Biskupic years: The proven-innocent Georgia Thompson (see also Biskupic tried to 'squeeze' Georgia Thompson), several overturned “voter fraud” cases (see also Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals) and Wisconsin Navy veteran Keith Roberts (see also U.S. Attorneys Scandal–Milwaukee).

Numerous victims of the Bush justice department remain behind bars. Let's not forget them.

Feb 26, 2009

Bush DOJ Not Over Yet

Former state rep Sue Schmitz of Alabama was indicted and convicted on fabricated federal corruption charges yesterday. The charges are ludicrous and won't stand the light of day, though they're good enough for an Alabama federal jury.

The question is what will Obama and his Department of Justice do to free Schmitz and other innocent victims of Bush's DOJ?

These people, Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and Bush-appointed federal judge R. David Proctor among others, have absolutely no remorse over what they are doing to this innocent woman. What goes on in these minds? How do they sleep at night?

We have had a few innocent serving time in Wisconsin courtesy of former US Atty Stephen Biskupic.

Now how do we free and compensate the victims and what will Obama do to help?

Nov 15, 2008

Alabama

This is for Don Siegelman, a man wronged by the Republican Party.

Keep the faith, Don.

Mar 27, 2008

Siegelman released from prison pending appeal

Update: From Salon:

The Alabama state GOP issued a statement about the 11th Circuit's ruling. 'The former Governor's release pending appeal does not change the conviction by a jury of his peers. It would be premature to turn this development into anything other than a formality.'

Huge development for the cause of justice: Innocent victim of GOP political prosecution ordered released from prison pending appeal.

The DOJ will ultimately face the music for their sociopathic enterprise of destroying lives for politics, though this is not much solace for DOJ victims.

Human rights attorney and writer Scott Horton has a piece on the Siegelman developments:

Today was a news double-header for former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman. In an order issued by the Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Siegelman’s request to be set free pending his appeal was granted. The court noting that it had reviewed the decision of District Court Judge Mark Fuller for “clear error” and had considered legal issues de novo stated that:

'Siegelman has satisfied the criteria set out in the statute and has
specifically met his burden of showing that his appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact.'

What drives US attorneys in the Bush DOJ, like Wisconsin's Stephen Biskupic, to persecute innocents? That's a question we would like answered.

See also Dan Abrams who has taken up the torch on the case:

Feb 25, 2008

Bama Dems Call for FCC Investigation into 60 Minutes Blackout by GOP CBS Affiliate

In the wake of the blocking of the broadcast of the Don Siegelman segment of 60 Minutes by Channel 19 WHNT serving Northern Alabama and Southern Tennessee, the Alabama Democratic party is calling for a FCC invetigation

As Scott Horton notes:

This station was noteworthy for its hostility to Siegelman and support for his Republican adversary. The station ran a trailer stating “We apologize that you missed the first segment of 60 Minutes tonight featuring ‘The Prosecution of Don Siegelman.’ It was a techincal problem with CBS out of New York.” I contacted CBS News in New York and was told that “There were no transmission difficulties. The problems were peculiar to Channel 19, which had the signal and had functioning transmitters.” Channel 19 is owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners, who can be contacted through Rhonda Barnat, 212-371-5999 or rb@abmac.com. Oak Hill Partners represents interests of the Bass family, which contribute heavily to the Republican Party. Viewers displeased about the channel’s decision to censor the broadcast should express their views directly to the station management or to the owners.

Alabama Democratic Party
For Immediate Release:
February 25, 2008Contact:
Jim Spearman (334) 262-2221 Cell: (205) 712-2350

Alabama Democratic Party Calls for Special Prosecutor
Dems Say FCC Should Launch Inquiry into Huntsville CBS Blackout

The Alabama Democratic Party today called on the US Justice Dept. and the US House Judiciary Committee to appoint a special prosecutor into the allegations of the political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman after the facts and interviews were released by CBS Television Network in their 60 Minutes program this past Sunday night.

Executive Director, Jim Spearman says there is too much smoke and too many facts for DOJ and Congress to ignore. "Abuse of the federal prosecutorial system for partisan political gain must be taken very seriously. The accusations by the 52 former state attorneys general, including the former republican AG from Arizona Grant Woods should be taken into account by the US Attorney General", Spearman says. Congress should not delay in taking the next step to call witnesses and to hold those not answering supeanoes in contempt of Congress.

For the Alabama Republican Party to issue its statement yesterday prior to the airing of the 60 Minutes segment trying to discredit CBS even before the program airs shows that indeed republicans may have something to hide.

"How can the ALGOP really try to discredit a former republican AG who is now a co-chair of their US Presidential Nominee's campaign effort,"Spearman notes.

Also today, Alabama Democratic Chairman Joe Turnham says he will send a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking for a formal inquiry into the CBS Huntsville affiliate black out of the the Siegelman airing. It has come to the attention of many Democrats in North Alabama that the principal owners of WHNT are Bush Pioneers and major republican donors. Many suspect that enormous pressure was put on CBS to not air the Siegelman story. If CBS received political pressure to stifle the first amendment rights of the network or affiliate, the FCC and Congress should take appropriate oversight into the matter.

Scott Horton on 60 Minutes Segment of DOJ Political Prosecution


Update: Rove is pictured at right mocking the jailed Don Siegelman. What type of man is Rove who would engineer the prosecution of an innocent man, inflict untold cruelty and damage to Siegelman’s family, and then laugh about it? Rove is today’s Republican, a man devoid of conscience and utterly amoral.

Scott Horton writes in reaction to the 60 Mintues piece:

CBS aired its long-awaited feature on the prosecution and imprisonment of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman this evening at 7:00. In a stunning move of censorship, the transmission was blocked across the northern third of Alabama by CBS affiliate WHNT, which is owned by interests of the Bass Family. Those who were in the zone of censorship or who missed it, can catch the whole segment here:

The CBS piece, for which I was repeatedly interviewed, came through on its promise to deliver several additional bombshells. The most significant of these was the disclosure that prosecutors pushed the case forward and secured a conviction relying on evidence that they knew or should have known was false, and that they failed to turnover potentially exculpatory evidence to defense counsel. The accusation was dramatically reinforced by the Justice Department’s failure to offer a denial. It delivered a fairly elaborate version of a “no comment,” and even that came a full twenty-four hours after it had conferred with the prosecutors in question. The gravity of the accusations made and the prosecutors’ failure to deny them further escalates concerns about the treatment of the former Alabama governor.


Republicans Lead the Attack

But the show was dominated by one of 52 former attorneys general from 40 of the 50 states who have called for a Congressional probe of the conduct of the Siegelman case, former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods. He leveled a series of blistering accusations at the Bush Administration’s Justice Department. With the Alabama G.O.P. this evening issuing a near-hysterical statement in which it characterizes the CBS broadcast—before its transmission—as an anti-Republican attack piece, it was notable that Woods, like the piece’s other star witness, is a Republican. Not just any Republican, either. Grant Woods is co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee, and a lifelong friend and advisor to the presumptive 2008 G.O.P. presidential candidate. Woods is also godfather to one of the McCain children.

Attorney General Woods has this to say about the Bush Justice Department’s prosecution of Siegelman: “I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of.”

In other words, not being able to beat Siegelman at the polls, Woods believes that his own party corruptly used the criminal justice process to take out an adversary. This is an extraordinary, heavy accusation. Not something that a senior Republican would raise easily about his own party. And the facts back the accusation up, beginning to end.

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.
Indeed, Karl Rove pursued financing for the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000 and again in 2004 by organizing a special elite status—called “Pioneers” and “Rangers”—for persons who donated or raised $100,000 or more for the campaign. These donors understood that if they wanted to be appointed to a government office, like an ambassadorship, they only had to ask for it.

So how many Bush-Cheney donors in amounts of one hundred thousand and more were appointed to government offices or to positions in the Bush-Cheney transition team? The answer is one hundred and forty-six (146). And in how many of those cases did the Justice Department initiate investigations of corruption? The answer is zero (0). The Justice Department’s rationale is that this crime is one that can be committed by Democrats alone. When a Republican does it, it’s normal campaign fundraising.

False Evidence

But even if we accept that it’s possible for the Bush Department to create a new category of “Democrats Only” Crimes, we still have the basic fact that the evidence on which the Siegelman conviction was secured was false, and was known by the prosecutors to be false from the beginning. Indeed, the evidence of this is now so overpowering that the Justice Department refused to answer charges on camera, just as it has resisted Congressional demands to turn over documents and wrongfully failed to comply with FOIA requests. The key testimony at trial came from a man named Nick Bailey, who, unbeknownst to Siegelman, was a crook. He never contested that fact. And he’s now in prison, where CBS interviewed him—notwithstanding the Justice Department refusal to authorize an interview. The prosecutors nabbed him and then told him he could get a light sentence if he worked with them to nail Siegelman, their real target. This very process is a perversion of the justice system, which as former U.S. Attorney Jones very properly says, requires that prosecutors investigate crimes and not people. But it gets still worse. Bailey testifies that he saw a check change hands at a meeting at which Scrushy’s appointment to the oversight board was decided. This is the evidence that landed Siegelman in prison. And it was false. And the prosecutors knew that it was false.

JONES: They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no– there was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand.

PELLEY: So, Siegelman could not have had that check–

JONES: No.

PELLEY: –in his hand that Bailey–

JONES: It was–

PELLEY: –testified to seeing?

JONES: Absolutely impossible and they knew that, absolutely impossible.

PELLEY: That would seem like a problem with the prosecution’s case…

JONES: It was a huge problem especially when you’ve got a guy whose credibility was going to be the linchpin of that case. It was a huge problem.
So the Justice Department’s silence in response to the charges was masked with a platitudinous statement. They stated that Siegelman’s case was pursued and developed by career prosecutors, that it was based on the law, and justified by fair evidence.

Each of the statements is about as honest as Attorney General Gonzales’s statement, under oath, before Congress, that he just couldn’t remember any details concerning any decisions to fire eight U.S. Attorneys on December 7, 2006. Which is to say, they are false.

First, we know that the first two career prosecutors assigned to the case, including the most experienced prosecutors who worked on it, came to the same conclusion that Grant Woods did: no reasonable prosecutor would ever have charged this case. The Justice Department has consistently made false statements about the roles of the two earlier prosecutors, and their role only emerged in the last few months. It’s extremely noteworthy that throughout the history of this case, whenever a career prosecutor concluded that charges should not be brought, that career prosecutor ran into a bump in his career and was off the case. The message to the remaining career prosecutors was plenty clear. In fact it is clear that the career prosecutors’ views were overridden by political appointees driven by a strong partisan political agenda.

Second, they claim that the case was brought on a fair reading of the law. It was not, and indeed reasonable career prosecutors never would have acted on the basis of the reading they advanced, and a fair detached judge never would have allowed the case to go forward. This case offered neither.

Third, they claim that evidence was produced to sustain the charges. But the key evidence that the prosecutors brought forward was false, and they knew it was false. In this case proceeding on the basis of that false evidence was a corrupt wielding of prosecutorial power, pursued for a corrupt partisan political end—the elimination of a political adversary. They withheld the Bailey notes which would have demonstrated that his memory on this was conflicted or wrong and would therefore have devastated his testimony. There is mounting evidence that one or more witnesses were unethically pressured to give false evidence or face retaliation. This suspicion surrounds not only Nick Bailey, but also Jefferson County Republican Commissioner Gary White. Note the affidavit of his wife, which a federal judge in Birmingham stated only two weeks ago he found “established a prima facie case of impermissible conduct” by the prosecutors. The claim put forward there goes precisely to these facts. White was pressured to give false evidence supporting Bailey on his false claims about the meeting. It is suggested that he would be prosecuted if he failed to do so. He refused, saying the testimony would be false. And he was prosecuted. This seems to summarize the crooked criminal justice system that Karl Rove and his friends have promoted in Alabama.

This is Only an Introduction

CBS conducted dozens of interviews and has much more that it hasn’t shown. The additional footage concerns the Canary team—husband Billy who advised the campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidates against Siegelman, and wife Leura Canary, whose prosecution of Siegelman was essential to the G.O.P.’s efforts to secure the Montgomery statehouse. And they have much more on the inexplicable conduct of federal Judge Mark Fuller, appointed by George W. Bush, a former member of the Alabama G.O.P.’s Executive Committee, and a man who publicly stated that Siegelman had a grudge against him—but who refused to recuse himself from the case.

Take a minute and write or phone CBS News and demand that they follow up on the open issues they raised and didn’t bring to fruition. Use the message function located under “Contact Us” at the bottom of this page.

Off the Air in Alabama

I am now hearing from readers all across Northern Alabama—from Decatur to Huntsville and considerably on down—that a mysterious “service interruption” blocked the broadcast of only the Siegelman segment of 60 Minutes this evening. The broadcaster is Channel 19 WHNT, which serves Northern Alabama and Southern Tennessee. This station was noteworthy for its hostility to Siegelman and support for his Republican adversary. The station ran a trailer stating “We apologize that you missed the first segment of 60 Minutes tonight featuring ‘The Prosecution of Don Siegelman.’ It was a techincal problem with CBS out of New York.” I contacted CBS News in New York and was told that “There were no transmission difficulties. The problems were peculiar to Channel 19, which had the signal and had functioning transmitters.” Channel 19 is owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners, who can be contacted through Rhonda Barnat, 212-371-5999 or rb@abmac.com. Oak Hill Partners represents interests of the Bass family, which contribute heavily to the Republican Party. Viewers displeased about the channel’s decision to censor the broadcast should express their views directly to the station management or to the owners.

Misleading AP Report Filed

Hopefully the Associated Press editors will start paying close attention to the reporting that is moving over the AP wires with a Washington dateline about the Siegelman case. We now have the second straight AP story filled with highly tendentious and misleading statements which are carefully set out to mirror the attack line put out by the Alabama G.O.P., but using the wireservice’s own voice. Here are some examples contained in the story filed by Ben Evans:

In the program, Simpson made claims that she had not previously raised publicly, either in an affidavit that drew wide attention last summer or later in sworn congressional testimony. [But Simpson made the claims during the summer to four reporters I have identified so far, requesting that they not be used, apparently because CBS was promised an exclusive on the story. She also discussed them with a Congressional investigator. All facts suppressed by the writer.]

She said then-White House political strategist Karl Rove asked her in 2001 to find evidence that Siegelman was cheating on his wife. Simpson said it wasn’t the first time that Rove — who was active in Alabama politics before going to the White House — had asked her to find damaging information about opposing campaigns.

She had not mentioned Rove directly speaking to her previously [this statement is untrue]. In her earlier sworn statements, she said she heard party operatives running Republican Bob Riley’s campaign for governor discuss political influence behind Siegelman’s prosecution on corruption charges. She described conversations in 2002 and 2005 in which she claims Riley campaign officials suggested that Rove was pushing the Justice Department to pursue charges against the former governor to keep him off the ballot. . .

Rob Riley has not denied that Simpson had some volunteer involvement in the 2002 campaign but he and others at the top of the organization have disputed her accounts, beginning with the affidavit and later when her sworn account changed last fall in congressional testimony. She said then that Siegelman dropped his challenge to the 2002 vote count after being told the investigation of him would end if he did, a claim ridiculed by Riley campaign officials. . . [This sentence seriously mischaracterizes the facts. Simpson reported statements made by other Republican operatives, not any dialogue with Siegelman.]

The Justice Department — as well as the career prosecutors who handled the case — have insisted that politics played no role in the case, emphasizing that Siegelman was convicted by a jury. [This statement suppresses the facts that the two senior most career prosecutors did not support a prosecution, and wound up being taken off the case.] Congressional Democrats, however, have been looking into the case as part of a broader investigation into possible political meddling by the White House at the Justice Department. [This is tendentious and misleading, falsely suggesting that the investigations, which are bi-partisan and include internal inquiries within the Justice Department, are partisan in nature, all consistent with Alabama G.O.P. press releases.]

Also, about 50 former attorneys general — most of them Democrats, but including some Republicans — have asked for a congressional investigation into the case. [Highly tendentious formulation designed to avoid bringing attention to the fact that the effort is led by Republicans.]

Feb 24, 2008

60 Minutes DoJ Political Prosecution Update

From Larisa Alexandrovna

No doubt you have all seen the broadcast on 60 Minutes about the Don Siegelman case. It was excellent and out of the three major bombshells, two were delivered tonight. Here is what I have learned today to add to this drama and it demands that you take actions:

1. 60 Minutes is interested in doing additional add-on installments of this story. I have it on good authority that the show's reporters and producers have much more to tell about the duo of Bill and Leura Canary as well as more about the corrupt judge, Mark Fuller, on the case. The network has agreed to run one, maybe two more installments if there is interest shown by the public. You have to let them know you want more on Fuller, the Canary couple, and the trial itself.

You can contact CBS here:
ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019
EMAIL: mailto:60m@cbsnews.com;audsvcs@cbs.com
PHONE: (212) 975-3247

2. I am hearing very disturbing reports that I have not yet confirmed - but need your help to confirm - that parts of northern Alabama went to black screen during the Siegelman broadcast. Anyone in the northern districts of Alabama who had this happen, please let either me or
Scott Horton know.

3. If you have seen the broadcast, then you now know that the key witness against Don Siegelman lied and that the prosecution was aware of it. There is more to the Nick Bailey story too. I have known for some time - but have not fully confirmed for an article - that Nick Bailey's brother was threatened with jail time by the US attorney's office (because he is allegedly as corrupt as Nick) if Nick did not testify against Siegelman. Based on the Bailey issue alone, Don Siegelman's conviction must be overturned. Moreover, US Attorney Leura Canary must be fired immediately and fully investigated. To accomplish this, you must demand that Congress respond to what is looking more and more like Soviet justice.

Contact your Congressperson
here.
[Contact members of the
Members of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary!]

And finally, happy birthday Governor Siegelman.

60 Minutes, Before Oscars, Don't Miss It!

Update: Writers on Siegelman and Rove scandal prepared to be attacked.

Before the Oscars, please watch the 60 Minutes segment on the Karl Rove-plotted jailing and smearing of an innocent man for the crime of being a Democrat in Alabama.

An anthology of political corruption, character assassination, and persecution of innocents will be on display this coming Sunday on 60 Minutes.

Contact members of the Members of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary!

The US Dept of Justice and the White House corruptly conspired to prosecute and convict a former democratic governor, Don Siegelman, because Siegelman was a political threat to the GOP in Alabama.

Banana republic? No, America under George W. Bush.

Feb 20, 2008

CBS 60 Minutes Siegelman Story to Air on Sunday

Scott Horton has been a one-man US Dept of Justice watchdog, exposing case after case of political prosecutions.

Don't miss 60 Minutes this-coming Sunday on the prosecution of Don E. Siegelman. The Bush administration pressured CBS and tried unsuccessfully to kill the segment.

CBS 60 Minutes Siegelman Story to Air on Sunday

Writes Horton:

I am advised by CBS News that their long-awaited feature dealing with the trial of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman will air on the next 60 Minutes program, on Sunday, February 24. I am told by people who have seen it that this is one of the best pieces of domestic exposé journalism the 60 Minutes team has put together in the last several years. Mark your calendar and if you’re out, this is the time to master the Tivo or the VCR record function.

Nov 28, 2007

Raw Story Running Series on Rove/DoJ Disgrace

Raw Story is running a five-part series by Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane on the Don Siegelman affair, Democratic governor of Alabama from 1999 to 2003, and an innocent man imprisoned by corrupt U.S. attorneys directed by Karl Rove.

Despotism has arrived in America when one’s alleged crime is mere political opposition to the ruling regime, landing one in prison.

Fortunately, the Bush Department of Justice is not monolithic and all-powerful.

Consider the character of Bush, Rove, Cheney and today’s GOP: Disagree with us (God's party) after reaching a certain level of prominence and we’ll throw you in jail, if we can.

How can the GOP think that way? Isn’t this repulsive to them? What about liberty and rights?

No, it’s today’s GOP, and any Republican not objecting to this disgrace bears some responsibility for it.

In Wisconsin, we have our own version of this disgrace in the U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic prosecution of the innocent Georgia Thompson. Both the Siegelman and Thompson prosecutions are under investigation by U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary.

In Wisconsin, Congressmen Sensenbrenner, Petri and Ryan: Where are your voices?

Wisconsin Congressional Delegation

###

Oct 29, 2007

Career Prosecutors Against Karl Rove's Political Prosecution of Siegelman

Scott Horton has a piece on the careeer prosecutors who were opposed to the Karl Rove operation in which U.S. Attorneys in Alabama were used as political hit men to gin up prosecutions against former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.

For the last several months, I have received accounts that a number of the most experienced and senior career prosecutors involved on the case strongly opposed continuing the prosecution against Siegelman. The case was pushed through, as one Justice Department person has suggested to me, “with blunt political force” over their opposition.
###

Oct 24, 2007

Bush's Corruption Exploding


Among the many betrayals of democracy committed by the Bush administration is the transformation of the U.S. Department of Justice into an appalling political hit-man operation using an agency of the government, the DoJ, to attack, libel and imprison political enemies in programs so audacious that Richard Nixon's dirty tricks operations, government corruption and two criminal attorneys general are comparatively trivial in comparison.

The extent of the Bush/Rove political prosecutions operating under the guise of the government entity responsible for upholding the rule of law is becoming apparent as the House Committee on the Judiciary continues its oversight hearings and its demands for DoJ documents [Much of the Committee's document demands of the DoJ have come from Representatives Conyers, Sánchez, Baldwin, and Davis. See members' follow-up letter.]

And the cooperate press, after a considerable lapse, appears to be somewhat back on the job, though the political prosecutions ought to be screaming from newspaper headlines and becoming the object of saturation coverage that would echo that of the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Taking up the slack with arguably the most incisive analysis and investigative journalism on the DoJ corruption is Scott Horton, contributing writer at Harper's.

Today's column is typical.

A Primer in Political Persecution

A United States Attorney, an embittered Republican who has been defeated in a series of election contests, had a meeting with attorneys for a criminal defendant, a prominent Democrat, at the outset of the case. “I know your client thinks he’s innocent. He’s offered to take a lie detector test. I’m not interested in that. In fact, I’m sure he’d pass the lie detector test. And in fact, I don’t have the evidence to make out my case. No matter. I just plan to throw shit at the wall and sit back and watch as some of it drips down on him. We’ll get him.”


This egregious breach of responsibility by a law enforcement officer, who is essentially admitting that he’s using his office for political persecution, is not drawn from a gothic novel. It happened just a few years ago. And the victim was actually convicted and is now sitting in prison–thanks in significant part to the extremely dubious conduct of the federal judge who oversaw the case. A federal judge who, moreover, was openly tantalized with the prospect of a judicial promotion by the Bush Justice Department as the case was running. We’ll hear more details on this story in a later post. But it furnishes a good glimpse into the total depravity of political prosecutions which stains the Bush Justice Department. And it relates to a case which wasn’t discussed in yesterday’s hearings in the House Judiciary Committee… one of many. ...

Look back here for coverage on the Bush administration's political prosecutions (in particular Roberts v. U.S., the story of the swiftboating and criminal conviction of an innocent Wisconsin Navy veteran whose criminal appeal is being argued tomorrow morning), and bookmark as a favorite Horton's No Comment column.

###

Oct 11, 2007

US Atty Scandal Broadens

Every politico in Wisconsin is familiar with the Georgia Thompson prosecution; a travesty of justice that has tainted Wisconsin’s fading reputation for fair play and impartial justice at all levels of government.

But being flushed out now is the scope of a program that the U.S. Dept. of Justice employed onto political opponents in key races across the nation, in which the infamous Georgia Thompson prosecution was but one ugly piece.

Scott Horton, a human rights attorney and writer at Harper's, has broken much new ground investigating DoJ political prosecutions including today's column linking Karl Rove to the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama governor, Don Siegelman.

Weeks ago Horton had also uncovered the outlines of a DoJ scheme to use the DoJ machinery against major Democratic opponents and one tier of Democratic supporters, trial attorneys.

Writes Horton:


The (DoJ)scheme contemplated among other things that raids be staged on the law offices involved, and that the records seized not be limited to campaign finance—there was an acute interest in all politically oriented documents, in order to seize valuable intelligence on strategic planning from the enemy camp.

In today's New York Times, Adam Cohen, reports on a case in Mississippi where evidence points to the blatant political prosecution of trial lawyer Paul Minor.

Writes the NYT's Cohen:

Paul Minor is the son of Bill Minor, a legendary Mississippi journalist and chronicler of the civil rights movement. He is also a wealthy trial lawyer and a mainstay of Mississippi’s embattled Democratic Party. Mr. Minor has contributed $500,000 to Democrats over the years, including more than $100,000 to John Edwards, a fellow trial lawyer. He fought hard to stop the Mississippi Supreme Court from being taken over by pro-business Republicans.
Mr. Minor’s political activity may have cost him dearly.
The case fits a familiar pattern. The corruption Mr. Minor was charged with was disturbingly vague, as it was with (Wisconsin's) Ms. Thompson, whose only “crime” was awarding a contract to the lowest bidder, and Mr. Siegelman, who was convicted for fairly routine political behavior.
Mr. Minor’s prosecution, like the others in this scandal, gave a big boost to the Republican Party. The case intimidated trial lawyers into stopping their political activity. “The disappearance of the trial-lawyer money all but wiped out the Democratic Party in Mississippi,” Stephanie Mencimer reports in her book, “Blocking the Courthouse Door.”

The travails of Georgia Thompson, though revealed to be an innocent victim of a corrupt federal judiciary, continues to incite national condemnation:

Writes Cohen:


In Wisconsin, Ms. Thompson’s trial coincided perfectly with Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle’s re-election campaign, and Republicans tried to link Doyle to Thompson. Mr. Siegelman’s prosecution looks like it was timed to prevent him from becoming governor again. It may be that all three of these cases were simply attempts to use the Justice Department to get Republican governors elected.
Ms. Thompson was fortunate to get a good federal appeals court panel, which ordered her released. Mr. Minor and Mr. Siegelman may not be so lucky. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and many other key players in the United States attorneys scandal are gone, but Congress has a lot more work to do in uncovering the damage they have done to the justice system.

The House Committee of the Judiciary postponed today’s Joint Hearing on Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of Public Confidence in Our Federal Justice System, but is expected to continue its investigations.

Wisconsin's Rep. Tammy Baldwin is the lone Wisconsin Democrat on the Committee.

The DoJ continues to stonewall the House Committee, but good government reporting in Harper's and the New York Times like that which contributed to the downfall of Richard Nixon may yet reveal the extent of the corruption of our national government under George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.
###

Oct 6, 2007

Updated - Details Emerging on DOJ Program Targeting Trial Attorneys

Updated: John Edwards fundraiser acquitted on all counts, DOJ political prosecution goes up in flames

Journalists are breaking new ground in the GOP scheme to use the DOJ as a Republican machine to target a major tier of Democratic campaign money: Trial Attorneys.

If sufficiently flushed out and advanced over the next several months, the story, a pattern of at best questionable prosecutions, can be expected to become a major corruption scandal just in time for 2008 elections.

Follow the prosecutions. As in if you know of prosecutions that smell in your area by U.S. Attys, send tips to: scott@harpers.org.

Scott Horton, a human rights atty and writer at Harper’s, has been breaking new ground for months.

Horton’s latest piece, A Minor Injustice: Why Paul Minor?, nails Mississippi and the nexus of a corrupt Mississippi press and a corrupt GOP legal-political machine.


The actual charges filed were almost incomprehensible. Several public integrity prosecutors with whom I conferred told me they were unfamiliar of any similar case raising charges quite like these. They were called “strange,” and “perhaps unique.” Most public corruption cases revolve on a quid pro quo: a public official is asked to do something for some form of compensation or reward. But in these cases there is no quid pro quo, and none is ever alleged.

Horton references a July 26, 2004 NYT piece, “DEVELOPING THE STRATEGIES: FUND-RAISING; Edwards Returns $44,000 In Donations” by RICHARD A. OPPEL JR. AND GLEN JUSTICE.


Senator John Edwards returned $44,000 in campaign contributions on Saturday after learning that the prominent corporate lawyer in Los Angeles who raised the money is facing misdemeanor campaign-finance charges in California.

Turns out that the prosecution before our very eyes in 2004 stinks to high heaven. Writes Horton:

"The Times notes that Paul Minor was the tenth largest donor to John Edwards, with donations totaling $129,000, and it also notes that almost every major attorney donor to the Edwards campaign mysteriously became the target of an aggressive Justice Department criminal investigation."

The prosecutions as they happened over the last several years went reported but unnoticed and unlinked to any suggestions of a political program. Now, that the DoJ has been heavily implicated as a politcal arm of the Bush administration, people are looking into the DoJ, and so should we.

Time magazine has a major piece on corrupt DoJ practices in Alabama (that Horton has covered as well), and that was recently featured at Daily Kos.

To no one's surprise, Karl Rove is the corrupt mastermind. See Karl Rove is the corrupt villain.



Now Karl Rove, the President's top political strategist, has been implicated in the controversy. A longtime Republican lawyer in Alabama swears she heard a top G.O.P. operative in the state say that Rove "had spoken with the Department of Justice" about "pursuing" Siegelman, with help from two of Alabama's U.S. attorneys.


Let's hope that we see more flushing out of the extent of the DoJ program to target democrats.

Investigations by the Congressional Committees on the Judiciary have been blocked by the DoJ and can be expected to be continued to be obstructed. This story will reach the American people via the press only.

###