Login HereThe House Judiciary Committee asked the Justice Department Thursday to temporarily release former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman from prison in early May to testify before Congress about possible political influence over his prosecution.
A spokeswoman for the committee said Siegelman, a Democrat serving more than seven years in a Louisiana prison, would travel to Washington under guard of the U.S. Marshals Service. She said Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, believes Siegelman could provide important information about Justice Department practices under President Bush.
This is good news. Not necessarily because I think it will lend a lot of new facts that will do the trick to spring Siegelman from what appears to be a very bum rap, but because it will really build on the wave of national publicity started by the 60 Minutes segment.
I have not yet seen anything additional as to details, such as who other witnesses would be, exactly what Conyers hopes to accomplish, etc. Perhaps we should help the Judiciary Committee out and come up with a game plan for them. Any suggestions?
UPDATE: Well. Wow. That was fast. I figured the request by Congress would turn up the heat on the 11th Circuit in relation to Siegelman's release pending appeal, but I didn't really want to jinx the concept by saying so in the post. BREAKING NEWS from The Birmingham News via TPM:
Former Gov. Don Siegelman will be released from prison, after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted him an appeal bond, the lead prosecutor in the case said.
Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin said he received a courtesy call from the court today. "He's going to be released," Franklin said.
He said he was disappointed but added, "The 11th Circuit has the discretion to do that, and I respect that.
Share This 
Spotlight
Karl Rover?
Why is Karl Rove still able to blow his horn on our air waves? When will they dress him up in a striped pantsuit?
Oh they might let Mr. Siegelman travel to DC, but it will be the biggest, longest perp walk you’ll ever see, with the media making him out to be the Capone of our time, complete with easily refutable, yet not refuted lies.
Is this a done deal? Does Mukasey need to say yes to this request? Is he going to? What if he doesn’t?
Why would anyone believe that the DoJ will agree to this?
Oh they might let Mr. Siegelman travel to DC, but it will be the biggest, longest perp walk you’ll ever see, with the media making him out to be the Capone of our time, complete with easily refutable, yet not refuted lies.
Oh they might let Mr. Siegelman travel to DC, but it will be the biggest, longest perp walk you’ll ever see, with the media making him out to be the Capone of our time, complete with easily refutable, yet not refuted lies.
third time’s a charm.
I’ve got it narrowed down to:
a) multiple accounts
b) serious plagiarism
What do I win?
No, I don’t believe this is a done deal yet. It is the US Bureau of Prisons that would have to acquiesce; and yes, they are a part of the DOJ, although historically a fairly autonomous part. If Conyers issues a subpoena to the BOP, I think it will be hard for them to refuse to produce him.
What the hell kind of cosmic link is going on with Randiego, Neil and Ann?
I am confused. If the DoJ can happily ignore contempt charges, then why can a sub-branch of the same ignore a subpoena?
A cosmic link called multiple personality syndrome.
But can DOJ say no to this request? Why wouldn’t they? Mukasey weighing the backlash vs damage from S’s testimony?
Sorry for the barrage of q’s but I am surprised that this is being reported as a done deal. If I were Mukasey I would have to think long and hard about this.
Guess I screwed up my comment. What I wanted to say is, I’m not so sure that the MSM is going to make a Capone clone out of Siegelman. I think 60 Minutes did a pretty good job getting his story out. I think charging those US attorneys that charged him could be a real good thing. At the very least, they need to be interviewed by Conyer’s committee.
Justice tried to keep an incarcerated witness from testifying before and it didn’t work. From my scandals list
Is that prescient or what?
I am not saying they couldn’t refuse, just that there is a long established process for getting federally incarcerated witnesses transported to places where their testimony is needed. It is just my opinion that if Conyers really wants him, and the process is followed, that he will be brought.
Nice! And that is exactly the process and thinking I was relying on; although I didn’t know or had forgotten that case.
Can you imagine the hullaballoo and wrath if he’s not released to testify before Congress?
Please, people…. Conyers surely has his ducks in a row, and that 60 Minutes piece was powerful. It’s a reasonable assumption that the good citizens of Alabama would raise holy hell if the Congressional Committee was spurned.
There’s no way politically that Siegelman doesn’t get flown to D.C.
Wow…. blessings on John Conyers and his staff.
I think that is right. However, there does need to be a battle cry to some extent on this to get the media portrayal in the correct frame before the Goopers install their wrong frame. Because you know they will coordinate between media plays and the usual diversion play at any hearing itself.
With our luck, it will be in closed session..
And damn, with MSNBC covering Hillary/Obama, the event won’t even get the
full coverage…
Mr. Siegelman may want to be teleported from his cell to DC. Or travel by armored tank.
My mind turns to legal tactics, as usual. I wonder what effect this appearance might have on his bond application? How will the appeal court react to whatever he might say - will they take it as extrajudicial pressure on them, and affirm o? What can Siegelman say that he didn’t get the opportunity to say at his trial? The Republicans on the Committee will get a crack at him too, and they might ask him questions that are designed to get him to plead the 5th while his case is still before the courts, and use that to trash the appearance. If Siegelman’s appearance is to be effective, it will be as an anchor to get Karl and his girls in front of the Committee.
Completely agree.
But I’ll go even farther — since I first started reading about the Siegelman case at Scott Horton’s No Comment blog, it’s one of the few ’stories’ I’ve followed where I feel the skin on the back of my neck rise before I get to the fourth paragraph. It’s compelling.
Siegelman’s story is skin-crawling creepy. Although it’s easy to see why Rove and the Bushies don’t want him to testify, they can’t stop the evil they set in motion from boomeranging right back on them.
If Siegelman can manage to rise above seeking revenge (which would be a challenge), then I hope that he can help explain why everyone is jeopardized by the legal mutations that BushCheney have inflicted throughout DoJ.
Remember that many REPUBLICANS signed that request asking Congress to investigate Siegelman’s case. This is not about partisan politics. One of the ex-AGs is from my state, a fine Republican with a good reputation. Those Republicans aren’t going to roll over and be quiet if Siegelman isn’t allowed to testify, trust me on this one.
BTW here is a Nina Totenberg story on the deal with Soukas testifying.
http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....Id=9533571
I had the same thought.
But in view of the attention -much of it from Republicans - on this case, the Bushies and Rove had better pray nightly that not one single hair on Gov. Siegelman’s head is the least little itty bit harmed.
These thoughts crossed my mind as well. Testimony in DC impacting his appeal, etc. I hadn’t thought about the Republican smear angle, however.
So far, Siegelman’s attorney has said he will answer any and all questions. That is gutsy. I do think this puts some pressure, and some heat, on the CCA in relation to his release motion; and rightfully so I might add. Personally, I would like to see the clerk of that district court hauled in to answer some questions on the transcript, because what has occurred on that front is total BS.
Hey bmaz you are doing a good job here. Thanks
OT
Interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK24qS1mPFo
I think that we should distill the best comments, research from FDL and EW threads and get them to Conyers. If I’m not mistaken, Christy Smith was on a panel with Conyers inside of two weeks ago so I suspect both EW and Christy have some points of contact with Conyers.
I’d like to remind everyone of how judges who were US attorneys work–that is like snails who need bilateral total knee operations. It is a common misconception in the Siegelman case that Siegelman’s appeal has been held up by Judge Fuller. Judge Fuller has justly been the target of some blame particularly for possible illegal deals that might involve bribery and conflicts, chronicled by Scott Horton, but again I want to make it clear Fuller and the court reporting situation has not actually held up the case in Chief appeal one nanoscintilla of a second. In that regard, Scott Horton, who has done yeoman work investigting this case.
Siegelman’s appeal clock does not start until his two appellate attorneys who also defended himin the trial court file their oppening appellate brief. They have not done this. When that brief hits the Eleventh Circuit Clerk’s office, then the briefing schedule will start. The new Court Reporter wrote Chief Judge Lanier Anderson when she took over for the original reporter who unfortunately worked through the trial while he was dying of cancer–many people would not have.
Anderson gave her until the end of this month to complete the transcript, but she finished well ahead of schedule and Appeal Clock does not start until lawyer gets first appellate brief filed. This is governed by the rules, i.e. Eleventh Circuit F.R.A.P.S.
Two judges on the Eleventh Circuit from Florida, Susan Harrell Black and Stanley Marcus. (Does a middle name used give one more professional dignity than just “Yo Suz?”)–John Riggins grabbed O’Conner in a restaurant and told her to “losen up Sandy baby!” She did loosen up in a profound way. She put your good friends Bush and Cheney in the White House.
Both of these judges know the implications of keeping a white collar defendent in jail awaiting his appeal. It’s often not done. The appeal bond is a separate issue. It’s assigned to two Eleventh Circuit Judges, Black and Marcus, and they have been taking their sweet time in deciding on Siegelman’s freedom. He could have and should have been out–and they could have and should have rendered that opinion. They issued a briefing schedule for the appeal bond, and rebuked Fuller for not responding to their order to elaborate on his reasoning for denying an appeal bond (unusual for the Eleventh Circuit or any circuit to do and a good sign for Siegelman).
In the Eleventh Circuit, you always argue the standards as nebulously defined by United States v. Giancola, 754 F.2d 898 (11th Cir.1985) I’ve gone into arguing Giancola for Siegelman’s release here.
On November 7, Black and Marcus ordered Fuller to submit a memorandum opinion after he refused, and both Siegelman’s lawyers and Franklin, now the acting AUSA in this case and on the appeal, were ordered to submit 30 page limit briefs and then 15 page reply briefs.
I wish him well. The more information submitted to Conyers’ staff along the lines of threads here and on FDL the better.
It might be appropriate to urge Conyers to get Scott Horton to appear before his committee given the research Scott has done and time he has devoted in investigating the background of this case and the origional participants’ ties to Rove and Judge Fuller’s behavior off the bench in the context of his land deals with the Republican Administration in Alabama.
Bmaz my understanding is although there has been much written about the transcript, it actually has not held up the appeal of the case in Chief.
The court reporter died as you know. A new one was appointed, Risa something or other. She had other pending deadlines, but she hopped on the transcript and finished it. I may not have the latest on this, but it’s my understanding Siegelman’s attorney has not filed his first appellate brief yet on the conviction or Case in Chief. I believe the briefs are now in as ordered by Judges Black and Marcus assigned to rule on the appeal bond (the order which I linked I believe in the link I put up just now from FDL was on November 7 by the two judges asking the government and the defense to brief the appeal bond, and of course they will be arguing Gioncala in the Eleventh which is the case there.
If the briefs are now in, and the reply briefs on the appeal bond, Black and Marcus are sitting on the decision of freedom.
The appeals clock cannot start until the attorneys get their brief in, and they have had the transcript for the better part of this month. I know Siegelman’s website railed about this but Governor Siegelman obviously wasn’t versed in Eleventh Circuit FRAPS.
S is being released on appeal, per TPM
I suspect knowing how the Eleventh Circuit and these two judges work, the Conyers hearling will have zip over zero over nada affect on Siegelman’s appeal bond which Judges Black and Marcus hold in their hands. They’ve had the briefs. They were antagonized by Fuller having the chutzpah (is that a Canadian word too?) to blow off their original order in September to write a memorandum opinion (we call them that here from the district courts)to explain why he denied Siegelman’s appeal bond. The second time that the two Eleventh Circuit judges pointed ordered Judge Fuller, the trial court judge to brief his denial, he grudgingly did so. I think that will help Siegelman. But the judges are going to be pretty independent of any Congressional hearing I can guarantee you. However, the background of this case, and the stubborn delay of Fuller in giving his reasons, and most importantly that Black and Marcus and their law clerks can probably find a way within the framework of the Giancola standard used in the Eleventh Circuit I outlined that Siegelman has met that standard, I give him a good shot at an appeal bond.
“Awright Cletus, cut ‘im loose.”
I dunno about this. As you stated, the briefing schedule does not get set until a transcript is produced. So Siegelman’s lawyers have not been able to file their briefs because they had no transcript to work off of. The absence of a transcript has without question been the holdup there. But it goes much further in that arguments for release bond pending appeal are generally decided on the apparent strength of the grounds for appeal, so, again, not having the transcript available to flesh out your grounds would materially affect that too. There was no reasonable explanation or reason for the transcript to have been so delayed, even with the original court reporter dead. Modern court reporting equipment used in Federal trial courts produce a working transcript that is, on average, 98% or so accurate on the spot and in real time as the testimony is given live in court. There is simply no excuse for not having another substitute reporter make the minor corrections to certify the working transcript for appeal long, long ago. So i don’t think this transcript situation is as explainable or innocuous as you say.
I haven’t read anything yet as to websites or papers today, so that is indeed good news.
bmaz
you are gettin’ really good.
a pleasure to read.
thanks for a number of fine posts in the last week or so.
Thanks, but I’ll be glad when mom gets home; I’m getting hungry….
If Siegelman is innocent, then I applaud your efforts, but if this is another Eliot Spitzer, Jenna Six, Duke Lacrosse incident with the facts about the crimes being readily apparent and indisputable, I think that it will become another perp walk with the Press and the Republicans getting more than their share of hits in.
It is hard to get people to worry about how the fox was trapped, when there is irrefutable evidence that he swallowed the goose.
Democrats spend too much time nitpicking on these lost causes. After a while people turn them off as nothing more than nitpickers.
The more important things that I think should be stressed are like about how John McCain is getting older, and more irritable each day, and more stupid about Iraq, or about how Iraq (according to PBS yesterday) is going to cost 3 Trillion or maybe more.
Complaining too much about how criminals were convicted seems to be a waste of air. They have lawyers to handle this kind of thing.
Good news indeed.
Canary’s “girls” — those are the two whose testimony I want to watch. Do we really want Karl there at the same time? Wouldn’t it be better to work up (down) to him, wearing away every possible defence he might have before he even appears?
Thanks from me as well, bmaz. You are a wonderful host. I’m grateful for your kindness as well as your fine posts.
Sorry OT
Hungry? Have you seen this interview on Charlie Rose’s program
http://www.salon.com/opinion/g.....index.html
My suggestion for additional witnesses:
– Scott Horton, lawyer and civil rights proponent who has championed the Siegelman case in Harpers, while the MSM yawns.
– The producer(s) of the 60 Minutes episode on Siegelman.
Put ‘em on the program and let the GOP committee members recommend their two of their own.
I think we ought to urge all FirePups in the Metro DC area to come to the hearing. If it’s full, we can rotate, or rendezvous at a suitably comfortable Irish rugger bar (in honor of She Who Must Be Obeyed) a few blocks down Mass. Ave from the Capitol.
The briefing schedule is set when the brief is filed by the appellant and of course as you say, the transcript is required and very necessary to use in citing for any number of purposes, FRE misinterpretations, objections, arguments in the appellate briefs that spring from the transcript. But in this case, the way things turned out the transcript production just didn’t cause delay very much if at all. The Eleventh Circuit is just slammed with drug cases as is every circuit because of the ridiculous sentencing guidelines that evolved around crack that have stuffed the BOP for years. And the courts have been slow to execute the relief that was made possible by the Sentencing Commission and the Judicial Conference a couple months ago for 19, 500 inmates to have their sentences potentially cut. SCOTUS BLOG is doing an admirable job of following this closely.
If you look closely at this timeline, while people keep jumping up and down, and most appeals of cases in chief, this appeal has not been significantly delayed by the transcript. And I stress the transcript has been completed for almost a month. But what I do want you to look at–and I fleshed out the dates in some of the posts I’ve done here or at FDL, Fuller did intentionally and like a putz (how’s that for professional legal analysis) hold up the appeal bond by refusing to issue his reasons in a memorandum opinon that was first ordered by the Eleventh Circuit in September, than again in November. This was egregious–and this is where the actual nefarious delay in this case actually was.
In the Eleventh Circuit, motions for appeal bond are decided more on whether the Giancola burden has been met, or whether they think that the defendant has a substantive chance of succeeding in his appeal. And that gets nebulous. I can show you cases in the 5th Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit where both very conservative circuits who are reluctant to reverse the trial judge’s lattitude on this denied appeal bond in White Collar cases. I will show you a case.
The same attorney who was behind the scenes orchestrating Greg Craig’s attack on Bill Clinton’s impeachment proceedings is Paul Mogen, an outstanding appellate lawyer at Williams and Connelly who clerked in the D.C. Circuit.
The defendant was an attorney who was accused of mail fraud in a serpentine situation with a video poker business that he operated. The Fifth Circuit denied the New Orleans attorney named Cleveland an appeal bond. He rotted in the BOP for about two years. When the Supreme Court granted Cert. in Cleveland, they immediately ordered Cleveland released on appeal bond. So the Fifth Circuit was in the position of saying adamantly that they did not think Cleveland had a chance ( or really that Mogin had a chance getting cert. let alone winning the case). The Supreme Court granted cert. so that kind of scotched the Fifth Circuit’s analysis and opinion Mogin and Cleveland had little chance of getting cert or winning.
Then the Supreme Court decided Cleveland v. US 531 U.S. 12 (2000) 9-zippity the zip. That’s an important case, because it has deep federalism implications and also implications on state primacy over the feds in matters of state licensure–video poker licensure just happened to be the vehicle here.
Actually every time the Eleventh Circuit looks at an appeal bond that has not been granted by the District Court the Giancola standard is front and center and the focus of their analysis. I have to tell you and I think you’ll agree when you read the case, that Giancola is very nebulous because they pretty much say that they can decide that standard however they like.
You may know Barry Tarlow because I know you spent time in California. A friend of mine who is a Harvard Law Prof joined his practice for a while. He wrote this article by Barry Tarlow for Champion Bail Pending Appeal : The Bail Reform Act. This goes over the Giancola analysis, but having seen their opinions on different appeal bonds in White Collar cases this is a murky standard that is an “enigma enshrouded in a mystery” to borrow a phrase a famous pathologist used to describe diseases.
Thanks by the way for the stellar job you’ve been doing here, and I particularly appreciated your connecting the dogs in the Hatfill investigation with cases where there use was actually attempted. Nice digging.
The transcript was completed early this month. The briefs were not. I understand fully that transcripts are integral for briefing but now that they have the transcripts, the ball is in their court bmaz to file the briefs.
Given that the average case in the Eleventh Circuit takes about 18 months for an opinion at best if their is oral argument granted (and that is 17.5% of cases filed in the Eleventh Circuit), what Siegelman needs now is to be sprung. The transcript has not impacted the appeal in the case in chief all that much when you consider that the unusual event occurred–a dying court reporter working his way through the trial, and the appointment of a new one who finished her transcription ahead of the time (end of March) that Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit Lanier Anderson granted her when she wrote him.
So I figure one possible outcome is that a few US Atty people in Alabama could be sacrificed in a PR move engineered to improve Republican/McCain’s chances.
Leen: Enough with the OT. Start a blog.
Good idea about having Leura Canary testify. But since her USA office would be defending its prosecution in Siegelman’s appeal, they are likely to beg off.
Perhaps, though, Conyers could use this hearing as the rationale for poking DOJ a little harder about all those Seigelman-related and other documents they are, uh, waiting for from the DOJ. Throw a few logs on that fire, Mr. Conyers, warm things up a bit.
FABULOUS that the 11th Cir. granted Siegelman bond pending appeal. He’s already served over a year, scrubbing latrines while Libby luxuriates in his WingNut Welfare job and $5000 suits, all while Judge Fuller putzes about not delivering up the trial transcript.
sorry but go watch that video clip (at Salon) if you have not all ready done so. It is really worth it.
I hadn’t read this when I kept predicting that Siegelman had a good chance to be sprung pending appeal, and this makes an already OK day even better.
Siegelman has done been sprung from the Clutches of BOP
I think that’s the better argument about the delays in Siegelman’s appeal. The transcript has been materially delayed, and not for credible reasons.
Unlike Libby, Siegelman was taken out in manacles, held incommunicado, and routed through several jails before ending up needlessly far away in Louisiana, itself conveniently reeling from the aftershocks of Katrina and far away from his family, lawyer and supporters and Alabama’s painfully uninterested media.
Siegelman release
at Raw Story
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/....._0327.html
Unless their court reporters are using equipment from the 80s or something (not much chance of that), I am pretty sure of that which i speak, because i have been there and done that. The machines in use now literally compile real time transcripts into desk top boxes and monitors at each counsel’s table and at the judge’s bench. As it is happening live; and they are VERY accurate. This shit in Siegelman just doesn’t hold water.
I know the dates. The transcript has not significantly delayed the case in chief at all. No one can point to dates showing us how the transcript has delayed this case in chief.
Eleventh Circuit wake up call. They take 18 months to decide an appeal at the fastest if it makes the cut to oral argument. Less than 1/5 of cases in fact do in the Eleventh Circuit. 17.5% of appeals filed get oral argument. Although a case could be published without it and theoretically not every case granted oral argument is published, for a case to have precedent and be published, it is without exception going to be granted oral argument.
Again considering the court reporter died, this appeal of the conviction has not been significantly held up. Further, this defendant has money–and the vast majority of defendants don’t. Granted this case IMHO should not have been brought, and the step and fetchit by the DOJ is Rove’s hands on DOJ writ large, but Siegelman’s attorneys could have
1) Requested daily transcripts–that gets done in federal cases when the money is there
2) Started crafting their appeal based on the daily transcripts if they wanted.
BTW, Siegelman’s lead attorney is a damn busy guy. He has other appeals and trials, and that is impacting getting this briefing schedule going in all probability.
If you think the appeal was held up significantly by the transcript, please show me where and how given the dates.
The real delay
The real delay was in the appeal bond being granted and Fuller held it up. I’ve also seen the Eleventh Circuit take over a year in deciding whether to grant an appeal bond–close to two years in some cases, so Siegelman did pretty well in being sprung today.
He has the comforts of home in Alabama tonight, and it will be interesting to watch and see if Congress has the balls to pry into a scumbag DOJ that makes the Soprano family look like choir boys. As Bmaz has pointed out and the lawyers who headlineat FDL in one way or another the rotten core of DOJ is in Main Justice primarily and what they do to the district offices. But this case with the Canarys and Alice Martin gets into beyond the pale territory in my book.
There seem to be two “threads” here, both of which get yanked by the unseemly delays in producing the trial transcript. The appeal itself, which PetePierce has commented on at length, and the hearing for whether to grant bail pending appeal.
As PetePierce says, the former can be a lengthy business, which makes the latter rather, uh, important for a non-violent, white collar crime that presents no flight risk.
Siegelman was treated egregiously before and after the trial, from forum shopping the case, to taking Siegelman out in manacles from the court room, to Fuller’s refusal to recuse himself in the face of obvious conflicts. (The list is considerably longer.)
One commenter wondered whether this was a valid case of political prosecution or “another Spitzer”. Based on Scott Horton’s reporting, that seems an easy question. Siegelman was prosecuted for actions that weren’t criminal. Combine his treatment with Canary’s pattern of conduct in attacking Democratic state representatives in Alabama, and “losing the file” in connection with leads that led to GOP operatives, and “political prosecution” seems the most accurate description.
I don’t want to belabor the point, but their wasn’t that much delay in the appeal of the case in chief due to transcript delay. And if the Eleventh Circuit grants oral argument (17.5%) of the time–and likely here, you’re talking a cool 18 months before you see an opinion submitted to the Federal Reporter.
As I’ve said, I’ve watched the Eleventh Circuit themselves (Fuller did here and they did a bit) delay a decision on an appeal bond as much as two years while the white collar defendant rotted his ass off in a BOP cube.
The defendants in my experience can brook a long haul for oral argument and an appeal much better when they are home and free than when they are beying abused significantly by BOP employees or bussed around from facility to facility which prevents them from contacting their attorneys or their family–rousted in the middle of the night–held in segregation for months with next to no phone calls if they can get any time in the long lines–shipped without any of their legal work, and their communication with attorneys disrupted systemically while they are being bussed from place to place. It does create overtime pay for the BOP/DOJ busdrivers however.
Britney Reverend Wright America is blissfully unaware of this disruption in attorneys’ commications with their clients (often appellate briefs sent to inmates is stolen and hidden in some Captain or Leuitenant’s drawer), but Federal Defenders are very familiar with it.
14 - yes and yes.
The only thing that would make any Congressional investigation worth much (since they can’t do anything vis a vis Siegelman’s conviction) other than the attention which should help him personally some, would be if something were actually going to be done about Fuller and “the girls” heading up DOJ’s USA slots in ‘bama.
But that won’t happen, will it? You don’t dislodge a Fuller except by “off the table” impeachment or incarceration, do you? And Mukasey won’t take any action on “the girls” I never expected him to be get the AG nomination from Bush if he was going to do much about Bush’s own crimes, but I really had hoped at one point for some kind of minimal amount of decency and competence with respect to restoring credibility and integrity in other areas where he could operate without being as bound by “done deals” that it took to get him in office.
I’ve lost most of the respect I had for him as a Judge, which was actually quite a lot.
Siegelman really should by Scott Horton a beer as one of his first priorities after he gets out on appellate bond.
From what i have seen, I agree with Horton that this was a no good persecution as opposed to a valid prosecution. There are indeed twin threads regarding the transcript; but they are interrelated in that once the release pending appeal has been denied in the District trial level, there is a reluctance for the CCA to overturn it without having solid, fleshed out appellate grounds that look like potential winners, and this is hard to do without the transcript. The fucking verdict was rendered by the jury in June of 2006. It is simply not credible to view this as a normal appellate process timeline for a criminal case. And that goes for the release motion AND the appeal on the merits. I stand by my assertion that this is complete BS.
In a case unrelated to this one, but interesting that may merit a thread, powerful longtime LA Attorney Bert Fields has informed DOJ that if he is called as a witness in the Anthony Pellicano illegal wiretapping trial, he will invoke his 5th Amendment rights not to testify.
Fields hasn’t been indicted, but I belive he should have been and should be.
Day of Embarrassment for Hollywood in Court
You had respect for Mukasey as a judge after his 9/11 follies????
The important issue that you’ve done a good job of underscoring in comments here and elsewhere is the lurid way that DOJ has conducted this prosecution, Cyril Wecht M.D.’s prosecution, Geoffrey Fieger’s, and Christopher Christie (New Jersey USA’s investigation of Senator Bob Menedez at the apex of his campaign for Senate and a number of others to wield as a political axe.
My thanks, too. You’re helping to satisfy my Daily Fix.
Bob in HI
Yep, absolutely. This is a point pretty much ignored by the media. Mukasey’s behavior post 911 consistently from the bench and his mistreatment of material witnesses and other defendants is largely ignored.
Christy Smith made this point last month, and I’ve often wondered why when there are attorneys on staff at newspapers more of them don’t cover legal issues. Yes, there are Supreme Court reporters like Linda Greenhouse who stopped by Harvard Law and graduated on her way to becoming the NY Times Pulitzer Prize winning reporter (for her reporting of the Federalism issues in Printz in 1998, but there aren’t nearly enough and legal issues are reported poorly in the press.
Could one of the law-talkin’ persons explain how this works? I mean, I see the problem, and yet, if there is evidence that something has gone wrong in a persecution — excuse me, prosecution — as we have all read there may well be in this one, the prosecutors can’t just use “pending case” as an excuse indefinitely, can they? There has to be a way through that.
53 - I’m not sure what you mean by a delay of the “case in chief” but no briefs could be filed without the hard copy transcript production. That should have been avaialable, as bmaz indicated, in days. If it had been, the briefs could have been filed months ago and what the 11th Cir did today could have been done months ago. I think that’s pretty much the point on the delay of the transcript.
No one could have had good, accurate, solid, cover all bases, briefs ready to go the instant the transcript was produced, bc of all the references and likely quote and Exhibit references needed from the transcript.
I think you are perhaps confusing/conflating the issue of the substantive appeal points - which will take awhile to get determined - with the request to free Siegelman on appeal bond - which was something that (as we can see from the result) does not normally take long. Courts usually rule pretty promptly - often in the negative, on whether or not to allow someone to be free pending appeal.
So the transcript issue was always an issue about Siegelman’s loss of liberty. Fuller’s delay with the transcript insured that Siegelman did not get the order that came through today several months ago. The actual timing of the 11th circuit hearings and rulings on the substantive issues isn’t something that anyone was as concerned about to my knowledge. THe concern was over trying to get him freed pending the appeal and the [in]action on the transcript prevented that. fwiw
Now that I agree with 100%.
Skdadl - I don’t know the answer to this off the top of my head; I can see some problems with the concept though. I don’t know about the Congress invading the province of a prosecutor while a case is ongoing. I was thinking more along the lines of putting Karl Rove under oath regarding his puffing denials, because Dana simpson has already appeared and testified under oath. Lets see if Rover wants to head into perjury land. Maybe a couple of the other lurid players from down there like the Rileys. Congress had no issue playing hardball with Roger Clemens; lets do the same for these assholes.
Sadly, Scott Horton did. He has recanted with grace and literary vehemence. The law, and a law partner scorned?
Good point about the geographic scope of these apparently political prosecutions. While not limited to swing states, they seem focused there.
Alabama (and Mississippi under Barbour) seems sui generis, a “prize” Rove has worked on for fifteen years, one he seems bent on delivering to the local GOP. It’s also a bell weather, keeping the South from veering off Nixon’s Southern Strategery course.
60 - yeah, on the whole, I did. I think he at least did some things that others wouldn’t regarding Padilla and access to counsel and he stood up to the Cheney pressure of sending Comey and Clement back to him to chastise him over his rulings. And I thought some of his writings, while not what I totally agreed with - incorporated some sound, valid aspects and were not dismissive of the concerns that I have, but instead weighted them a little differently, but while giving them some weight and effect.
You have to know about me that I am in many ways a law and order kid - used to have tremendous respect for people like prosecutors who are willing to put themselves in a position where really nasty people have reasons to know their names and not like them much. Pretty much felt the same about police, state troopers, etc. I have low tolerance for guys in those positions who really go corrupt or who really go over the edge with power and can get ballistic over that - but I also cut a lot of slack for things done in the heat of scarey moments or times when a call has to be made asap and it’s hard to get it right and I think they are all underpaid and underloved. Or I did pretty much. I have to admit, while I still think the same about police, I really have had years to keep souring over those who have continued to show up and work for torture every day, every way - or to support by silence.
I think I’ve made the confession here before that many years back I distributed campaign materials for Lugar and a lot of years back but not as many, I supported Warner in VA (not Mark, John) In 2000 I would as likely have supported McCain as Gore if McCain had won (although in Clinton’s first run I actually backed Paul Simon in the primary).
That’s okay, I felt the same way about Scruggs to some extent (although he was certainly never my law partner); unfortunately it looks as if I was wrong. I really didn’t want to believe the accusations, and there were huge potential holes that were enough for me to hang my hat on at the time. But that was wrong it appears….
Siegelman is no longer a prisoner.
On Mukasey, I will say that nothing he did on waterboarding and the illegal wiretaps surprised me though. I didn’t think for a moment that there was any way that anyone would get nominated who was not cast iron going to let Bush off the hook for his personal crimes.
Of the list of possibles that were put up, though, I did think Mukasey was the smartest, strongest willed, and cleanest. And with Keisler as counterpoint, I guess what I did think was that while Mukasey - or anyone who Bush would put up - would go along with torture and illegal searches and seizures and mass telecom felonies and disappearing children and adults and signing off on State Secrets to cover up crime, etc. (I know the waterboarding thing surprised Horton, but while I was upset I can’t say it surprised me) - still, I thought that he would take the reins some going forward and would put a curb on the nonsense.
That didn’t happen.
bmaz has thoughts on your question. I think it’s pretty clear cut that a prosecutor could not disclose his or her history or views on a case whose appeal is still pending before a court. Patrick Fitzgerald, for example, could not have testified under similar circumstances about the Libby case.
The administration isn’t bound not to discuss these matters in the same way; they could have commented on collateral issues. They have, instead, used that excuse to avoid commenting on embarrassing topics.
Had the administration commented on matters ancillary to the Libby case, they would have created a public record. They avoid that like the plague: one reason el Presidente refuses to speak words at odds with his version of the facts is that it would be “doing his opponents’ job for them”.
That’s political CYA, not leadership. But if there’s one thing these guys are good at, it’s avoiding liability for their mistakes while pinning it on their enemies. They’re not competent at much, but they are masters at that.
64 - Depends on the questions, imo. But they will use that excuse no matter what the questions, as well as deliberative process related prosecutorial decision making privileges, and so the end run will be in part how hard Congress would push and whether they would do anything to force compliance.
But it is a far different thing to ask a prosecutor to disclose the substance of their prosecutorial decision making than it is to ask them, under oath, if Karl Rove ever contacted them (or their spouses) about the case.
[I still wonder what it is that the disbarred atty discussed at the party that set this whole thing in motion. ]
I’ll try again, in my amateur way: if you think you have evidence of possible misconduct on the part of a prosecutor, do you really have to wait until the particular case involved is finished?
Heh. Or I could have just waited for Mary.
O/T, but also for Mary (posted somewhere earlier, but you’ve probably not seen it): the SCC gives the gov’t lawyers a hard time.
76 - thanks so much for that link. Much better reports and prior links than anything we get here.
Good to know that I’m not the only one here with a checkered political history.
As Mr. Siegelman would say, tis better than stripes.
Interested readers here might want to check Horton’s blog - just up is a media alert that Horton will be on Dan Abrams this evening. 9 EST, 6 PST, but also in your browser at msnbc.com
OT — And Goooo Cougs! (Not sure I can really stand to watch the Cougs/Tarheels game, but I’m sure that I can find some rose colored glasses…
bmaz and petepierce are more informed. Generally, “evidence of prosecutorial misconduct” by a DOJ lawyer, such as a USA or AUSA, would be handled first by the Office of Professional Responsibility at DOJ, an office whose title is now a contradiction in terms. It has reportedly been corrupted as badly as the OLC under Bradbury, or the Civil Rights division under Hans von Spakovsky & Co.
OPR’s responsibility is generally limited to “professional misconduct”, actions that are illegal, unethical or negligent conduct for a practicing as an attorney. Other types of misconduct or illegal behavior would be investigated by the DOJ’s Inspector General, apparently less corrupted than OPR, but with a limited reach.
Ordinarily, one of those two offices would investigate and recommend further action, from nothing to removal from a project, an office or the DOJ, and/or criminal prosecution, which they would handle.
The problem is obvious: no one outside DOJ has jurisdiction to act and DOJ won’t. The system has no work arounds for this level of corruption. In effect, Al Capone gets to audit his own tax returns and pronounce them compliant.
Congress and the public can draw attention to the matter, to get the president to act. The president’s response would be, “So?” Congress could also impeach the Attorney General or a USA. But Congress seems afraid of its own shadow, much less Mr. Cheney’s, and will not impeach.
What we can do is document and remember. Regarding the Don Siegelman’s, and there are many, I think there’s a case for some early pardons by the next president. We should also forcefully demand that neither the next president nor Congress, “put these things behind us” by forgetting they ever happened. Cheney was wrong, it was wrong to pardon Nixon. It would be wrong to pardon Cheney and Bush before investigating and documenting their illegal actions.
How could I forget Mary?
Anyone think that the Governor of Puerto Rico is a political prosecution too? He says it is. He’s a Democrat. I don’t know much about it, but I’m sure it wouldn’t surprise anyone here.
You know, from your lofty perch as EW part deux, you might want to call Conyer’s committee people and get them to request the clerk guy to appear.
None of us can forget Mary. Mary haunts us. Mary cures us of our crushes on the wrong guys. Mary is, y’know, Mary.
Ditto to that suggestion!
EOH plus bmaz-
You do not think Conyer’s committee will have any impact? Rove must be wondering WTH is up with this?
O/T “Them there nuuklars getting a look-see.” bmaz, my decommissioned question was spot on…quarterly inventory on all nuke parts and nukes and they missed the four fuses for over a year? Sure…
OT, DiFi grouches about evident dissolution of JLewis public corruption investigation; evidently AG ordered entire unit dispersed, no more close scrutiny as an integral unit, rather, cases followed on less priority basis. I wonder if this reorganization mandate is solely in that one jurisdiction or if this is yet another US attorney impact dilution lite.
link was there
wow, I hope he still testifies before congress, I hope his release isn’t based on silence or “national security”