Siegelman (Dem, Gov) “was dragged away ….bound in handcuffs and manacles”

Something seems frightfully wrong here.




Siegelman (Dem, Gov) “was dragged away ….bound in handcuffs and manacles”


http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2007/as-insight-0805-0-7h04t4606.htm


A failure of skepticism is apparent in coverage of the Siegelman trial
By Scott Horton
Special to The Star
08-05-2007
Photo Illustration/Tosha Jupiter

Today former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is interned at the Oakdale Federal Correctional Institution in Louisiana, where it is said he is being given routine chores including cleaning floors. He was dragged away from his sentencing hearing bound in handcuffs and manacles on orders of federal judge Mark Fuller, who was appointed by the current President Bush and is a former member of the Executive Committee of the Alabama Republican Party.

The scene was sufficiently shocking that even staunchly conservative Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Birmingham questioned the treatment given the former governor. Forty-four former attorneys general from around the country, a good many of them Republicans, taking note of the often-crude irregularities in the prosecution, trial and sentencing proceedings, petitioned Congress for a special probe of the case. Congress, in the form of the House Judiciary Committee, decided to act, issuing as a first step a demand that the Justice Department supply documents relating to its prosecution of Siegelman.

Nothing quite like this has ever happened before, and it reflects a very high level of skepticism on the national stage about the quality of justice meted out by the Bush Justice Department generally, and particularly in federal courts in Alabama.

Two Fridays ago, the Department of Justice missed a deadline for compliance with Congress’ demand that it turn over documents related to its case on Siegelman. So far, the Justice Department appears to have directed its efforts not to compliance with the congressional mandate but to the issuance of crude and ethically dubious propaganda volleys in the media. This only reinforces the public’s growing impression that the entire process has been politicized…..

A couple of people supposedly used information on the Internet as an improper source of evidence.

Beyond this, there is not ONE THING which proves this to be some sort of political persecution. As I see it, the left is collectively trying to convince itself that just because this was a Democratic Party politician and just because it's this Republican administration of George W. Bush, the conviction of this Democrat must - MUST - be a case of malicious prosecution, and Siegelman must therefore be a political prisoner, an unjustly convicted innocent man, and, furthermore, a hero.

Skepticism about the quality of justice we get from the DoJ aside, I do not know for a fact that this man is innocent, and I challenge anyone arguing for his case that they know that for a fact, too. The prosecutors not being saints does not mean in and of itself that Siegelman did nothing wrong. Even if the prosecutors are corrupt - and there is no proof that they are, because, to be blunt, prosecutors being hostile against a defendant is the norm, not the exception - that doesn't mean that Siegelman isn't corrupt too.

And yet, not knowing that, there's an accelerating stampede to Siegelman's defense - it started slow, but it's picking up steam - based on a belief that the prosecution MUST be bad, for the simple reason that the politician involved was a Democrat of some importance. I find this assumption to be rather dangerous and unhealthy. It sounds like what Republicans say, even when Republican prosecutors go after their own like Scooter Libby or Gov. Ryan.

But when you have Jonathan Turley, one of the top legal advisors on things like Constitutional law, saying that the Bush administration has made a joke out of the DOJ (and wondering out loud why there is no sufficient response from the Democratic Congress) when you have former Reagan officials saying that the DOJ has been politicized beyond belief, etc then I'd say we have to give this man the benefit of the doubt.

What about the affidavit from the republican who was an assistant prosecuting attorney who said the prosecution was a political vendetta and improper? She signed a sworn statement that she had heard five years ago that Karl Rove was preparing to politically neutralize Siegelman with an investigation headed by the U.S. Department of Justice. According to other reports, over 100 charges were thrown out by three different judges, and the investigating U.S. Attorney was the wife of his political opponent's campaign manager. The judge who finally got something to stick was a recent Bush appointee.

So, not one thing?

There are allegations. There is that affidavit. But, given that Karl Rove doesn't have the authority and power to launch such an investigation in the first place, what that woman believed was the case, whatever she believed Rove aspired to do, is in no way proof that Rove actually did it. At any rate, it basically doesn't matter; since Rove doesn't have the direct authority and responsibility, the real responsibility for an abusive prosecution rests with the U.S. Attorney and the judge that permitted it. And that's all. The problem is that there's a lot of thin circumstantial evidence and no proof. It is not something you would convict a prosecutor with.

You also ignored the rest, which I'll sum very briefly: Siegelman may have done something illegal that politically motivated prosecutors caught him doing, after many failed previous attempts. The reply below yours saying that the harshness of the punishment is proof (of malfeasance) would mean that Siegelman is not an innocent man, but has been punished too harshly.

Congressional investigations and hearings and the sort of dust kicked up over this issue are the sort of thing that generally happens when there's a belief that a man is INNOCENT. This guy man not be innocent at all; he may simply be less guilty or deserving of punishment than the prosecutor and judge decided he was. And yet people are being quick to assume that just because they see Rove's shadow over this, that means that Siegelman is INNOCENT. If Siegelman isn't, that assumption, that belief, is going to be a problem down the road.

That is what this thread is about. If you really think he's guilty, then why aren't you more upset at the DOJ for failing to turn over the evidence to Congress? If there is nothing substantially wrong, the issue would go away. I'd have a hard time imagining these Democrats making any trouble over this even if we found out that Bush had him put in Guantanamo via double-super-secret executive order.

What really concerns me isn't investigating per se - I'm all for investigating quite a few things. But talking it up as a conspiracy before all the facts are in is going to make things harder. I was particularly concerned by the tone of a recent editorial in a major newspaper about this case. The last thing we need is Congress running around trying to fit facts to a pre-ordained theory of Siegelman being a political prisoner.

On the other hand you're trying to turn my words into something they're not because you perceive me as the Enemy. Not that you are, but that's not how an investigation into this kind of matter should be conducted. If only for self-preservation.

I doubt many Democrats have the problem of too much faith in our leaders. Our politicians constantly dismiss us (except during the primary), secure in the knowledge that there is no where else to go. I'm constantly expecting to be Sista Solja'd by whatever craven TV Democrat is being interviewed. They love throwing us in the river to prove their moderate bonafides. I'm sure many are on the take, as well. But, the DOJ is in cover-up mode and stonewalling a legitimate investigation. Maybe it's simply reflexive for such a contemptuous administration, but seeing how political the DOJ is now, is it really so hard to believe that he has not received fair treatment? If this guy was imprisoned for Legislating While Democrat, I want to know.

You seem to think there's no cost to assuming the guy's innocent and then later, no matter what dirt can be thrown on the prosecutors, finding out that, well, he's no saint either. There is a cost; being seen to be turning Congress into a Democrat protection racket, the mirror image of Bush's DoJ. Maybe you'd prefer that Congress was such a thing. However, the perception of it would be a political own goal, as the British would say. Championing innocent Democratic politicians = good. Championing corrupt Democratic politicians = not so good. Do we know which Siegelman is? Not really. We're just assuming he's innocent because we loathe Rove.

I have the sneaking suspicion I'm the only one who cares. Well fine, if that's the case...

The conservative movement has successfully infiltrated the American judiciary via orgs like the Federalist Society with people who have privately sworn to do their utmost to negate the parts of the constitution they dislike and Bush has appointed political hacks for all American DAs. This means, in many areas of the country, the law has been entirely subverted to the political will of the Republican Party. Why are you putting faith into institutions that you know have been seriously corrupted? If and when our courts return to a sense of institutionalized fairness, where Republican judges and prosecutors don't actively work to circumvent the law, my faith will be restored to the system. But that hasn't happened yet, and I see no reason to legitimize the functions of government currently run by an unrepentant dictator and his lackeys.

Mistakes and yes, even corruption do happen in courts of law, but that doesn't mean we give up on them and go back to the Vendetta. I'm all for attacking wrong in the legal system wherever it is found, particularly in regards to this DoJ fiasco, but talk like that - that the entire legal system is illegitimate - is tantamount to rejection of civilization itself. If there's one system that ought to be worked within for change, it's the system of law, which is much preferable to rule by the barrel of a gun.

I am trying to convey how deciding that a court isn't a court just because a Republican-picked judge sits in it is every bit as ruinous as what Rove is doing.

Edit: Look, I see where you're coming from, I sympathize, I really do, but I was not on the Free Scooter bandwagon just because a Republican special prosecutor and a Republican judge were involved in his case. That's a very shifty precedent to set.

And that does make Republican complaints of legal bias look stupid. That's what separates me from a Republican: reality. Their side really has subverted the system, and quite overtly. Republicans are not playing the same game everyone else is. Other people have ethics, traditions, and beliefs which guide their actions and prevent them from abusing their positions in the manner we have seen lately. The modern Republican Party has rejected these limitations, and justices who follow the conservative path the Judgeship do so by flagrantly violating their oaths to the constitution in order to impress their political bosses. Apparently, this extends now to all federal DAs, as well. America used to be one of those places where the law mattered, but that hasn't been true for many years now. Pat Robertson's university is churning out future high court justices, each more than willing to have you drawn and quartered if the Republican Party should see fit, and I don't see any response to it by the establishment. How can one put faith into people who you know are unrepentant political hacks?

Oh yeah, and I'm not arguing for a return to personal violence as a method to solve civil disputes. I just don't see how we can get our legal system back until we acknowledge the severity of the problem, which begins with an overview of the work they've been doing. Especially when that work involves the prosecution of a high ranking opposition politician, it just seems like a natural place to look.

Even though I'm sympathetic, this is bad politics, whatever the legal merits of Siegelman's case (which I hope become more evident upon appeal, through the judicial branch).

is the basis of my suspicion. Most people don't cover up crimes they didn't commit. If there's one thing I can tell you about Americans it's that if you hide something, we think you're guilty. It's time to put the "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" rhetoric to good use, for a change.

I mean, it's an active case, it's being appealed, congressional records are generally public for anything that's not specifically covered by national security arrangements between the legislative and executive branches.... what prosecutors would be eager to cooperate and have their case material get pored over by senators who could make the material available to the defense that's appealing the case?

I'm not saying the DoJ's motives are good in this case. I wouldn't believe it myself. But I have a hard time seeing how in this matter, a Democratic DoJ would behave differently in terms of trying to keep this material from Congress (not necessarily succeeding of course).

But the information requested by Congress could be provided to Congress either "in camera" or under a protective order. I have to say Kagemusha, you should really look into the Federalist Society's coup of the federal judiciary. You cannot be serious in believing that political prosecutions are not the order of the day in several US Attorney offices, can you?

I have a lot of grievances against Republicans, but I can't walk around saying stuff like "Republicans are putting Democratic governors in prison! They're political prisoners! Free Siegelman! Free Siegelman!!" without having people look at me really funny, if in no small part, because well, look at the comment above about Siegelman being presumed innocent until he's been found guilty in a court of law.

...

Come on. It's not a court of law? Look, like I said, in courts of laws, mistakes happen, bias and injustice happen here and there, but we don't just trash the whole system.

No, not even because there are a lot of Federalist Society judges, and not even because there aren't political prosecutions. If we just reject the system, how can we criticize injustices within it? How can we demand better? How can we demand justice when all we want is Just Us, as opposed to Just Them? How does that make us better?

It doesn't. It just makes us a different gang, whining because we're not in power and they are.

That is why I'm leery about assuming that Siegelman is innocent for the simple reason that he is a Democratic ex-governor and a Republican administration is in power. In other words, it's very easy to make a case that we to the left of Rush Limbaugh, don't actually CARE whether or not the guy's innocent; we only care that he's a Democrat, and the rest is petty details.

Never mind being that way - that is a very dangerous thing to be SEEN as being. But like that. I'm apparently the only one here who cares about being seen to be only interested in Just Us, and not in protecting all the non-Democrats out there who are likewise being railroaded by political hack prosecutors, as if Republican political hacks never, ever go against non-Democrats. That's the image it is going to give everyone not involved with Democrats, and it is ruinous, poisonous, and worst of all, an insult to every progressive who actually believes in justice for everyone who isn't politically connected, not less or more based on party affiliated.

You can turn a blind eye if you wish to. I think there are serious issues which demand investigation. Perhaps that investigation should come from a special prosecutor. Perhaps it is best left to congressional sources. There are plenty of legal professionals who have raised serious issues about the veracity of our nation's Attorney General and several US Attorney's. If those constitutional and legal scholars look foolish, well, at least I am in good company. Keith Olbermann has also raised these very issues on Countdown. Does Keith looked foolish for raising these very issues?

It is not like we have never seen politically charged investigations and prosecutions in our nation's history. We certainly know that other corrupt regimes throughout world history have used and subverted the legal system for their own gain. I am at a loss to figure out why you are so willing to give this administration the benefit of the doubt.

That's not the same thing as spreading around conspiracy theories predicated on a victim being an (R) (Scooter) or a (D) (Siegelman). That's not going to play well with the public at all. And if there is an injustice, since Bush isn't going to be issuing any pardons for this, it doesn't matter what Congress says - the issue will go through the appeals court system regardless, and will be decided there, not on Capitol Hill.

The whole idea that Capitol Hill could overturn a politician's conviction for political corruption is odious to the vast majority of Americans, and Congress should investigate, but avoid any such impression to the best of its ability. The more this becomes a cheer leading contest, the more this becomes the Just Us system, and we will ALL lose for it.

Even Republicans.

We obviously disagree on whether the federal court system is fully capable of being trusted at this point in our nation's history. I do not believe that numerous of the recent appointees are on the court to uphold the constitution and ensure justice - they are there for partisan, political reasons. I used to trust the courts as you apparently do now. I lost that trust due to personal experiences in 2003.

Just because I disagree with you on the approach to take here does not, as you continue to insist in violation of all logic, mean that I trust the courts. I just ask where the hell Congress gets off deciding there is an alternative. Only Presidents can pardon. What the hell do you want Congress to do? Politically interfere in a corruption case involving a member of Congress' majority party?

Fine. I'm tired of arguing. If you really think that'll help, great. Support it. Shout it from the rooftops. Maybe it's a better idea than I give it credit for.

What do you want to do about the corruption? I am still trying to figure that out?

I do want Congress to investigate illegal activity from this Justice Department and corruption by life-time appointed judges who have either committed crimes or perjured themselves to get onto the bench. Don't just shout about it from the rooftops, shout about it on network TV and in our political discourse.

I enjoy the discussion, so I hope you share with me just how we should better address this coup of the judiciary.

talkingpointsmemo also covered it at length. Yeah, he committed a crime. BUT, he did not directly benefit from the crime and was sentenced to a LOT of time, even though most caught doing exactly the same thing do no time, take probation and pay fines.

He was politically lynched, doing what politicians across this country do every day.

The rest is just very, very compelling.

This:

"based on a belief that the prosecution MUST be bad, for the simple reason that the politician involved was a Democrat of some importance."

is horseshit. Every article I've seen (including the op) gives compelling reasons to be looking at this case very closely, both in regards to Siegelman's criminal culpability or the lack thereof, and the method of/reasons for, prosecution.

Just because Republicans cry foul as a modus operandi politic, doesn't mean a democrat should cry foul when there is a miscarriage. And if we can't do so, then they truly have nailed the final nail in our coffin.

If the collective Democratic body politic is going to get up and cry foul, it should have some confidence that this is a miscarriage of justice, not simply an excessive sentence.

Really, what's next? Maybe they'll make drinking fountains for Democrats only - we won't be able to use the nice ones reserved for the Republicans.

I mean, come on. We have an Amendment to the Constitution that's supposed to guarantee us equal treatment under the law. You know, the one that Bush used to steal the presidency?

I agree. Quite often, I'll come across posts which imply through howls of righteous indignation that all crooked politicians should be removed from office. "I just want them out! I don't care if they're Democrats or Republics-- I want them gone!".

But all too often, when the opportunity presents itself for us to actually rally behind the code of ethics we advertise, we end up illustrating that our conviction is little more than a bumper-sticker.

In the end, I am forced to make a choice-- either there truly are no Democrats who are guilty of any improprieties or (more likely...), guilt and innocence are not party dependent.

I've always thought such statements were hyperbole when other people made them, but things have changed so radically.

I heard of so many people these days who are getting arrested and thrown in jail for the most ridiculous reasons.

Following the trial, Kilborn and McDonald raised issues regarding the jury's impartiality after receiving what purported to be emails exchanged between two jurors during the trial.<8> In court the judge said, "I do not want to deliberate too much about these e-mails."<9>

In June 2007 a Republican lawyer signed a sworn statement that she had heard five years ago that Karl Rove was preparing to politically neutralize Siegelman with an investigation headed by the U.S. Department of Justice.<2> Siegelman defenders point out that over 100 charges were thrown out by three different judges, and the investigating U.S. Attorney was the wife of his political opponent's campaign manager.<2> The Republican activist, lawyer Dana Jill Simpson of Rainsville, Alabama, filed a sworn statement saying that she was on a Republican campaign conference call in 2002 when she heard Bill Canary tell other campaign workers not to worry about Siegelman because Canary's "girls" and "Karl" would make sure the Justice Department pursued the Democrat so he was not a political threat in the future.<2> "Canary's girls" included his wife, Leura Canary, who is United States Attorney for United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.<2> Leura Canary only submitted recusal paperwork after Siegelman Attorney David Cromwell Johnson's press conference in March of 2002. Then two months after the press conference she "voluntarily recused herself."

Siegelman defenders noted the sentence and fine are unusual because, for example, former Alabama Governor Guy Hunt, a Republican, was found guilty in state court of personally pocketing $200,000, and state prosecutors sought probation, not jail time, in the Hunt case.<2>

The New York Times noted, "The United States attorneys scandal has made clear that partisan politics is a driving force in the Bush Justice Department," and "There is reason to believe prosecution may have been a political hit, intended to take out the state’s most prominent Democrat, a serious charge that has not been adequately investigated."<3> Further, "We hope that the appeals court that hears Mr. Siegelman’s case will give it the same hard look that another appeals court recently gave the case of Georgia Thompson. Ms. Thompson, a low-level employee in a Democratic administration in Wisconsin, was found to have been wrongly convicted of corruption by another United States attorney."<3>

Others have pointed out that the critics of the prosecution effectively are opposing the U.S. jury system, as Siegelman was convicted by a jury of his peers. There have been two websites recently published spelling out the facts of each side of the controversy, DonSiegelman.Org and TheTruthAboutDon.Com.

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

It's more with those able to remain because they agreed to Karl's suggestions.

When does the misuse of the Department of Justice and the manipulation of prosecutions rise to the level of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law? In fact, I think I may just pose that question in a thread by itself a bit later.

-Hoot

But it is rancid overkill, it stinks and they know it and that's what is keeping it off the tv.
But it does serve as an example to others Dems in positions of power.

while the article gives several reasons why "Siegelman was railroaded in a political vendetta that was orchestrated by politicos in Washington in concert with Alabama Republican leaders", the writer seems to go out of his way to avoid any mention of what Siegelman was actually convicted of.

Until you skillfully made your point.

I think we need to remember and too often forget to keep an eye on the hand they are HIDING behind their back, as well as they hand they are waving at us to get our attention.

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000714

The above is the link to Scott's "No Comment" blog post in which he outlines the improprieties in this case.

This in particular struck me as outrageous:





Below is the link to his blog which contains other posts relevant to this topic.

http://harpers.org/subjects/NoComment

"A review of the key articles published in the Birmingham and Mobile newspapers from the beginning of the case reflects a consistent pattern. They know all the details of the prosecution’s case before any indictment is issued and any evidence is presented. They know who came before the grand jury, and when, and what the essence of their testimony was.

There are two possible explanations for this. One is that these are some of the most talented and most capable reporters in the history of the profession, with an eagle’s eye, a bloodhound’s scent and Sherlock Holmes’ facility for inductive reasoning. The other is that they were being spoon-fed the prosecution’s case from the outset."




http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2007/as-insight-080...

Guess it will have to wait until after vacation.

Welcome to the fourth Reich...

n/t

30 posts on this topic at time of the recent TIME article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1023111

"So far, the Justice Department appears to have directed its efforts not to compliance with the congressional mandate but to the issuance of crude and ethically dubious propaganda volleys in the media. This only reinforces the public’s growing impression that the entire process has been politicized….."

Just hasn't been paying attention for the last several years.
He's the real Bush consiglieri, not Gonzales.
Gonzales is the waterboy.

I'm a native Alabamian and I've been back here since '93.
I've followed this case as closely as I can, given that my closest 'big city' daily is the right-wing Mobile Resister, and they've been 'investigating' Siegelman monthly since he first took office.

The other big paper, The Birmingham News, has been conservative since my childhood. When word got out about the repub attorney's affadavit you didn't here a peep out of them for weeks, and then it was buried on page 8, and ONLY after Harpers and Time had shown them up..

The Anniston Star is a very respected paper, and I'd believe their reporting more than anyone else's.

I've written about this here till I'm blue in the face...er...fingers.
Whatever.
And it really pisses me off when someone advises 'caution'.
Or 'we don't want to go off on witch hunts like THEY do'.

Well...scuse me...get the kids out of the room for a minute...
but FUCK THAT!

Siegelman aint a saint, but I don't know a single Alabama politician who WOULD qualify for sainthood. And he's been a damn sight better that most of the rest of them. At least he's a real progressive, and not some damned Democrat with his sheet and hood in the closet at home.

Forget about whether or not a crime was committed.
And forget about whether he was guilty or innocent.
His treatment at the sentencing hearing was beyond all belief.
Even repug DAs in the state expressed wonder at
1. His NOT being allowed to 'bond out' pending his appeal.
2. Not even being given the CUSTOMARY week or so to 'get his affairs in order' prior to surrendering to authorities.
3. Having his goddam BELT AND SHOELACES removed by a bailiff in the courtroom in full view of all.
4. Handcuffed and then shackled to be led away.
For a fucking 'white collar' crime? IF guilty?
I'm surprised they didn't strip him and put him in the orange jumpsuit.

When repug governor Guy Hunt got caught with his hand in the cookie jar a few years before, the prosecution RECOMMENDED probation.
And he'd taken $200,000 to literally 'feather his nest'. Marble bathtub and gold plated fixtures in his lakefront home.
And he never served ONE DAY IN JAIL.

And tonight, Scooter Libby will enjoy a nice steak and a bottle of pretty good California Merlot with his wife and family.

Sometimes...some of y'all...JUST PISS ME OFF!
:grr:

Although some of the sanctimonious comments just drive me up the damn wall.
:eyes: