Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Now that Siegelman's conviction has been vacated, can Holder order the case dropped?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 08:43 PM
Original message
Now that Siegelman's conviction has been vacated, can Holder order the case dropped?
Edited on Tue Jun-29-10 09:05 PM by Ken Burch
Our AG doesn't actually HAVE to let the U.S. Attorney for Alabama keep this going, does he?

I'd really appreciate someone giving an answer here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TxVietVet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. What I don't understand
is why they won't drop the case. What did Seigelman do to keep this injustice going? Because he defeated a conservanazi for the Alabama governorship? Or is it because he's a Democrat? Why can't the Department of Injustice investigate and see what wrongdoing that was going on? Or perhaps, since that would be a major conflict of interest, appoint a special prosecutor to see what laws were broken in this attack on Siegleman and his incarceration immediately after his conviction?

There are a lot of questions that needs to be answered and I think the conservanazis in Alabama have a lot of crimes to hide. :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Dropping it might make Karl Rove look bad. Can't have that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Er...WHO can't have that?
Why would anybody in THIS party want to protect Turd Blossom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Obviously, the "looking forward, not back" Obama administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Isn't looking forward, not back what Mark McGwire said he wanted to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I have no idea who that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-30-10 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Sorry,
He was the guy who set the National League single season home run record, then got busted for steroid use. The "I don't want to talk about the past" thing was something he said when Congress subpoenaed him to testify about steroid use in professional sports.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. I believe it was sent back to the lower court for them to determine if
it should be upheld in light of the new SC ruling.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. The Justice Department could still announce that it will not argue the case in the lower court.
It's not as if Holder has a constitutional or even statutory obligation to try to keep the case alive. Holder KNOWS the charges against Siegelman never had merit, and he knows that Democrats have nothing to lose from Rove being discredited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. At this point the question is mute. The lower court is required to take action
the AG's office would then have an opportunity to respond, which depending on the lower court's decision might be mute. At this point there is no more arguing before the lower court until the lower court has reviewed its decision in light of the SC ruling.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. The AG presented the case
against him the SC with Kagan as the Solicitor General. I hope they would drop it now but in light of that I would be unsure just what they would do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-10 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. Siegelman is free, but Scrushy is still in jail for the same thing and has been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC