Not news? Pffftttt.

When I can, I peruse cable late afternoon news… flipping between CNN/MSNBC/FOX. It’s always juevenile, but at least I know what these guys are telling their audience. Did so yesterday for 1st time since I think Wed.

Only mention of Siegleman I saw was as I mentioned. Nothing on Fox or Blitzer (could of missed a Blitzer nugget, but there was definately nothing even remotely informative/comprehensive).

Abrams did a good job

Yes, I saw. I don’t know viewership stats… any idea how many watch Abrams vs. 5pm Blitzer/Matthews etc?

I’ve been reading Horton’s articles on this since the beginning… followed all the DOJ/USA firings (I live in Spokane & Albuquerque: Mckay (Wa.) & Iglesisas (NM) both high on radar w/that one). Neither paper of record (Spokesman Review: Spokane & ABQ Journal: ABQ) gave anything close to thorough, factual coverage of either incident. In the Iglesias matter, the ABQ Journal (ABQJ) instead went after Iglesias both on front page and OpEd, covered for both Domenici & Heather Wilson, and printed (at least) 3 Iglesias hit pieced by RNC Attn Pat Rogers attributing him as “An Albuquerque Attorney” (Google him… he’s a NM RNC dirty trickster w/long record).

ABQJ has printed one article on Siegleman… an OpEd piece by Cynthia Tucker (no mention of 60 mins piece or Horton’s articles): Tucker actually got the facts of Seigleman charges wrong, entirely missed problems w/Judge Fuller, said nothing about conflicts of prosecutors… etc etc.

My point: for casual viewers/readers depending on our local papers and “after work” cable news, based on what I’ve seen, these folks are bound to be un/mis-informed on entire range of DOJ malfeasance & Siegleman in particular.

I read the blogosphere speculating Siegleman’s appearance @ Conyer’s hearings will “blow this thing open” and other such hopeful hi-light of this issue. I’m not so sure… based on what I’ve seen, I wouldn’t be surprised if Siegleman’s appearance is entirely ignored by these “news” services… perhaps even spun as crooked dems grandstanding to embarrass “exonerated” (eg: not indicted by Fitz) Rove.

In this same vein, ABQJ published a whole series of OpEd’s by Paul Greenburg defending upcoming Gitmo show trials along w/defense of BushCo “torture” policies… but printed nothing… nothing on various JAG resignations/complaints, Colonel Morris Davis comments/resignation, nor anything whatsoever regarding circumstances of arrest/detention for most of these prisoners.

Also, nothing at all on Maher Arar whatsoever in ABQJ. Arar’s satelite testimony before congress was on CSPAN, but I saw no mention anywhere else (even in blogosphere).

So anyway, my remark @ 121 was intended as snark. It’s also reflective of my “prime time” cable news observations on this matter. I’m highly skeptical that Siegleman issue will rise to anything more than a blip on the screen of MSM coverage.

And, as aside, I was rather shocked (right word? I dunno ) in watching the CABLE roundups yesterday to see Obama’s pastor is still the front/center discussion consuming most of their time, w/every Tom/Dick/Harry pundit weighing in on what it all means. Surreal IMO.

Honestly, I think MSM swift-boating has gotten worse since ‘04, not better. MSM news in my localities, AFAIC, is non-ending fairytale & accountability has degenerated. Not trying to be depressing here, just realistic.

Abrams did a good job; gave some context, background, highlighted Rove’s history in Alabama, and his guests (Cong. Arthur Davis, Scott Horton) always articulate. Someone with Abrams’ show put in a lot of work putting together that background tape on Siegelman together, but it was very coherent.

Should you be interested, you can watch msnbc.com shows online at your convenience, rather than wait for the teevee (unless you TiVo ;-))

Watching, it looked to me like he was doing an… “I better hurry up and get past this one.”

Apparently, this is not news… ///???

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

In fact, Abrams was all over the Siegelman story at the top of his program, saying that he’s gonna stay on the story. He billed it as a blockbuster event, and featured the Rove connection. His story line looked like he’d been reading this blog. They read statements by the Alabama Republican party, but their panel of 3 did not contain any supporters of Siegelman’s conviction. So maybe the MSM is starting to get this one.

Bob in HI

I guess they just plum forgot to mention that although the Bush DOJ prosecutes both Democrats and Republicans, they prosecute Democrats at a ratio of almost 5:1 over Republicans.

I’ve linked the law review article from Stanford Law Review showing these numbers, althoug some dispute the statistical analysis. I don’t.

He is also one of the most cowardly judges cowing to anything the Administration advances in the context of 911.

who wouldn’t be crucified for 5 month transcript delay on a matter involving a Governor going to jail.

That’s just not the case. I grew up in the Sixth Circuit, and someone in my family was law clerk to Boyce Martin (that’s the Sixth Chief Judge) and there have been delays in the trial courts. Those crucifixions that you imagine don’t quite occur on the ground. There is a hell of a lot of defference to the trial court judges. I can certainly speak for and have spoken about situations in the Eleventh where I saw a trial court judge delay ruling on an appeal bond for two full years. He wasn’t crucified. Again, some attorneys are more aggesive in moving the ball than others. I wouldn’t let a trial court judge sit on a motion without moving the Circuit Court of Appeals to make him move, but whatever Siegelman’s attorneys did, the Eleventh Circuit did little to stop Fuller from dragging things out. Again the transcript wasn’t the factor; and the transcript didn’t hold up this appeal bond, and saying it did doesn’t change Fuller’s two delays when ordered to issue a memorandum opinion dealing with his reasons for appeal bond denyal, and then the months after those six months when the Eleventh Circuit asked for four briefs on this matter from the attorneys.

The lawyers could have pushed more specifically and more forcefully in this appeals bond time line, and so could judges Black and Marcus by respectively motioning for and requiring brief time periods to move the appeals bond alone. I’ve seen reprehensible dragging by both the Eleventh Circuit and certainly trial judges in this respect and it’s not unusual.

In any event, I have never known of release pending appeals motions/rulings in a high profile case to be held up for months because of a transcript delay.

That’s nice, but that didn’t happen here. And now he’s out. What’s of far more interest is how as Bmaz posed we could get at what really drove this case and I know you want to.

I have known of transcripts that took awhile – but never in a high profile criminal case (i.e., more civil than criminal case holdups and generally no lawyers pushing).

I’ve seen transcripts take a while whether the case was “high profile” or “low profile.”

I appreciate this, but what I wrote I saw. It wasn’t fiction. Again you keep using the phrase transcript and holdup as if the transcript caused any holdup in this case and it did not.

Fuller caused the appeals bond ruling to string out for months, and the Eleventh Circuit was rather passive given that Fuller was acting like an idiot. They should have taken charge and put a time limit on the little bastard. Again, I don’t know about the Seventh, although I have seen Posner act like a prick in published opinions, but the Eleventh nearly always without exception gives deference to the trial court whatever the ruling is. And you keep using the term high profile case as if you think that if someone is important, as in former Governor of a state it changes the landscape on opinions. It’s been my experience that isn’t what drives opinions in the Eleventh Circuit whatsoever and in fact, most other Circuits. And one could argue here and Horton has vigorously, that Fuller had an axe to grind with Siegelman and a favor to do for current governor Bob Riley.

You keep assuming the transcript had impact her on the timing when in fact Fuller’s extreme dragging in issuing rulings and defying and obfuscating when the Eleventh Circuit two judges required an opinion from him was the reason for the delay.The only pending ruling in this case was the appeals bond, Mary, and it wasn’t held up by a transcript delay. It was held up by an obstinate Judge Fuller delay.

I would also point out if Judges Stanley Marcus and Susan Black, who both have had experience working as AUSA’s had wanted to, they could have leaned on Fuller more specfically and given him deadlines once he defied them. They could have (and I’ve seen this done for appeals motions) put a several day requirement on the lawyers and the trial court judge for getting the Judge’s memorandum opinion done and the attorney’s respective briefs. That might have expedited the appeals bonnd, given that Fuller had taken his sweet time during both orders from Marcus and Black to elaborate on his denial of Siegleman’s bond.

They chose not to.

The attorneys for Siegelman, both very experienced, could have chosen to include that request in their various motions to the Elventh Circuit and they did not.

This wasn’t 2-3 months, it was twice that.

Yep Mary. I wish I had a buck for every time I’ve sketched out the timeline again. Fuller’s delay not the transcript caused those six months and on November 7 Eleventh Circuit two judges required 4 briefs of the lawyers–two briefs and two reply briefs when they ordered Fuller for the 2nd time to supply a memorandum opinion.

The Eleventh Circuit did not specify a time frame.

As to detriment, only an idiot thinks it’s not critical to try to get your client out of prison sooner than later. I have tried to emphasize the role Fuller played not in holding up the transcript, but instead in holding up his opinion requested by the Eleventh.

So what I was pointing out was that the claim of detriment to Seigelman by those focused on the transript delay was NOT a delay in the overall, ultimate ruling on ”the appeal,” which would take time, but rather that they could not get to the issue of a release pending ruling without the transcript – they couldn’t get him sprung while waiting ”the appeal” until the transcript went up.

You totally have neglected that they didn’t make a decision on the release because while the transcript was being finished, they twice ordered Fuller to elaborate on his reasons in a memorandum opinion and after taking three months the first time he refused. Thenwhen ordered the second time, Fuller took three months again to issue an opinion. 3+3=6 (transcript aside). Then the attorneys took time in getting in their brifes on the appeal bond and the defense needed not specifically the transcript, but Fuller’s opinion so they could consider it in their brief and reply brief as ordered by the Eleventh Circuit in the context of Giancola.

Horton focused on the transcript confusing most of his readers with that misplaced focus, but he also noted the delay caused by Fuller’s defiance of the Eleventh Circuit’s order.

I’ve tried to spell that out repeatedly.

What I’m emphasizing to you is that I have seen trial court judges function as absolute pricks knowing that they were holding up an appeal bond release decision, defiantly sitting on even a ruling itself let alone a memorandum opinion of the ruling and knowing they were going to deny release in the first place. They weren’t spending long days and nights agonizing over their decision. And in those cases,I saw the appellate courts and sometimes the attorneys do little to goose the trial court judge. That’s not my approach to pricks that are delaying because they think they can.

I do think that Horton et al are correct that Seigelman could not get his shot at release without the transcripts going up and that the transcript in this day and age in a high profile case involving a Gov should never have taken so long and that Fuller could have and should have made it happen more quickly.

And I guess you’ll continue to ignore Fuller’s six months overall delay in providing reasons for his opinion when the Eleventh Circuit ordered them. What did you think when you read the orders that I linked and the timeline showing Fuller ignored them? Or did you read it?

He’s out now. You’re free to lodge a complaint with the Eleventh Circuit as to Fuller’s conduct. If you do, I wouldn’t focus on a fictional transcript delay. I’d focus on a real delay in issuing rulings that were ordered by the Elevnth Circuit because that’s precisely what happened. The Judicial Conference tightened up discipline ever so slightly last month but in no meaningful fashion.

that there is a lot of finagling on where someone gets sent,

This is done by BOP and often in cooperation with AUSAs who want to try to squeeze a potential incarcerated snitch into testifying the way they want at trial. I’ve also seen judges write letters to BOP requesting modifications of designations as in the case where Posner fucked up the family in regards to this mother and little girl, and I’ve also seen AUSAs who were mothers of small children flippantly do their best to fuck up the visiting situation because they could.

There are always reams of trees wasted about DOJ programs for playgrounds, etc. youth centers and enhancing and protecting the lives of children and their is next to no publicity about the many times they participate in getting prisoners transfered where they can’t see their families, or arguing strenuously in favor of it or in defense of BOP when a 2241 motion is filed.

See from the EOUSA Reading Room:

FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS
(28 U.S.C. § 2241-53, 2255)

So what I thought had been your point originally was that there was no way to say that the delay in getting the transcript to the court delayed the ”appeal” because they weren’t going to get around to ruling on the appeal for awhile anyway

So what I thought had been your point originally was that there was no way to say that the delay in getting the transcript to the court delayed the ”appeal” because they weren’t going to get around to ruling on the appeal for awhile anyway, and what I was trying to make was the point that Horton and others were complaining, not about how long it might take the 11th to rule on the overall appeal, but rather that they were saying Seigelman was having to stay in jail without even a chance of getting released UNTIL the transcripts went up and Fuller was not lighting a fire to get the transcripts sent up more quickly.

I’ve tried to be explicit. Even if the transcript had been ready on day last of the trial, there would still have been the same delay here because of Fuller’s foot draging.

Why do you omit the timeline of Fuller’s holding up the appeal bond by witholding his rulings and then refusing to give the Eleventh Circuit the rationale in the form of a memorandum opinion for six months that they ordered him to supply them?

Mary you continue to focus incorrectly on the transcript and adamantly refuse to mention the timeline of Fuller’s delay in rulings on the appeal bond, and his delay in producing the memorandum opinion the eleventh Circuit had to order him to produce twice. That was what they wanted to rule on his appeal bond. I don’t know and much care what the Sixth and Seventh Circuit’s use or allege they use to rule on Appeal Bonds. I do know that everyone who does appellate work in the Eleventh Circuit is focused on Giancola and I included a pretty decent analysis of it from Champion above and in all my links and comments on this case for the last two months.

I still think that and I was reacting to your query as to whether or not anyone could show how the delay hurt Seigelman in any way.

Wasn’t the transcripts. Was the delay of Fuller that caused the timing and part of the equation was the failure of the two Eleventh Circuit judges to be prescient and headsup in requiring a time limit for Fuller to move his ass.

I also explicitly told you the Court reporter wrote Lanier Anderson, Chief Judge in the Eleventh and she outlined other work she had to do and Anderson bought into her argument. Fuller wasnot going to do a transcript, and he wasn’t going to appoint a third reporter, and frankly no judge would.

You failed to mention

1) Fuller’s role in dragging on the appeals bond ruling and holding this up which caused it to drag for months.

2) Judge Black and Marcus failed to require time windows for Fuller and the attorneys to file the opinion and their four briefs in a timely fashion.

Had their been no such thing as a transcript, this would have still dragged things out for eight months.

Hope I’m clear.

As to what would help now, it would help to get the major points showing Rove orchestrated this through his soldiers like Leura Canary and Alice Martin to Conyers.