Why Did Obama Administration Ask Judge To Increase Gov. Siegelman's Prison Sentence?

[EagleViewDC]

139. Author Andrew Kreig again

Hello again!

I can shed some light on a couple of points of discussion on this thread. For those who truly want to get the bottom of the Siegelman case from a big picture standpoint, I believe I can point the way also but it takes more time and more of an open mind than most people have. So let's stick to the specifics that have raised concern here.

First, the Obama Justice Department asked for a 20-year sentence for Siegelman in May 2009 following a ruling two months previously by the federal appeals court dismissing some counts in what was then a 7-year sentence, according to both an AP article and Siegelman's website. See Dothan Eagle, MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — "Federal prosecutors want former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman to serve a much longer sentence than he originally received in a federal government corruption case, even though an appellate court has thrown out two of the charges against him." Such an initiative doubtless originated by holdover personnel, and yet would have also been subject to review in DC by the new administration, which is responsible for actions in its name even if the president would probably not have been informed of it by his close friend Eric Holder. By 2012, prosecutors had reduced their request to 88 months. Something has apparently been lost in the many rewrites of this time line, not surprising since the docketed entries probably entend to at least six feet in height -- a rather large task for all the reporters and reader commentators to keep in mind during this 14-year probe and prosecution for events in 1999. This strikes me, at any rate, as a relatively small point by now in this saga since it is clearly the case that the Obama administration has fought Siegelman in a host of other respects, including twice at the Supreme Court.

On Nov. 5, the hardcover edition of my book on recent presidents and candidates will be announced providing my take on what I learned in six years covering this case intensively, beginning with advice to former Rove colleague Jill Simpson on the eve of her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee staff on how she learned that Siegelman was being frame, how the judge was in on it, the motives, etc. This is a relatively small part of the book dealing with similar situations over the past century, mostly concentrated in recent years, especially deviltries concocted during the Bush-Cheney years. It's not feasible to try to summarize a 350 page book supported by 1,100 endnotes here except to say Simpson's story checks out despite many denials all around, and make sense once one understands rivalries, opportunities, and fears that extend far beyond lawbooks and courts. I welcome any informed discussion of this, especially before academic, legal, and other audiences that proceed with the rigor that I have applied to the research. Please contact me if you would like to arrange a suitable venue, especially convenient to my base area of DC-NYC. Leaders of Alabama's Democratic Party invited me to such a discussion in late August there, but the timing wasn't quite right and instead I donated several paperback advance copies to their fund-raising efforts as part of an awareness effort.

That continues with my high-priority right now to help underscore the plight facing not just Roger Shuler in Alabama's court system but others in any kind of civil litigation who might find themselves before such powerful adversaries as the Riley family with a judge who seemingly operates contrary to settled law. The situation is so extreme that Alan Colmes hosted me this evening on his radio show nationally syndicated via Fox News Talk. He is one of relatively few of that stature to understand the implications of prior restraint, sealing a court record, and throwing a blogger into jail for an unlimited contempt term without a contested hearing. I gather that a number of commentators here are attorneys, journalists, and thoughtful political thinkers in other respects. With all the humility I can muster, I can only say that if you have not done a deep, deep dive into the world of politics Bush/Rove style as I have done in these years, I suspect it is hard to imagine what can actually occur. "Hardball" does not do it justice.

Finally, path in DC occasionally brings me into encounters or other discussions with true insiders. In friendly, casual conversation, I have advised the first two White House counsel that they would be extremely well advised to counsel relevant individuals to be on the right side of the Siegelman case. On his own, the first White House is now a pro bono counsel for the imprisoned Siegelman and recently filed legal papers that, in a normal case, would merit remedial action.

My point, however, is that this has never been a normal case, for many years. Unless those reasons are exposed or otherwise addressed, I see no good result for this until the long years of the term are completed. I sincerely hope that I am wrong! Am on HuffPo Live! tomorrow describing how the flying monkeys are coming after Shuler. The Riley case seems just the first part of a plan for strategic lawsuits to cripple bloggers who dare report what the MSM overlooks in this environment -- including kowtowing to the authorities from both parties who claimed no one should be concerned about the fairness of Siegelman's judge.\

Andrew Kreig