Larisa Alexandrovna: NYT Asks Why Holder Is Not Looking At The Siegelman Case

[Hissyspit]

http://www.atlargely.com/2009/04/nyt-asks-why-holder-is-not-looking-at-the-siegelman-case.html

April 25, 2009

NYT asks why Holder is not looking at the Siegelman case

In an , the NYT asks a very important question: What about Don Siegelman?

Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent decision to drop all of the charges against Ted Stevens, the former Republican senator from Alaska, because of prosecutorial misconduct raises an important question: What about Don Siegelman? A bipartisan group of 75 former state attorneys general has written to Mr. Holder asking him to take a fresh look at the former Alabama governor’s case. He should do so right away.

<snip>

Mr. Siegelman’s supporters have long argued that he was targeted by the Justice Department because he was Alabama’s leading Democratic politician and stood a good chance of once again being elected governor. A Republican lawyer in Alabama, Jill Simpson, has said that she heard Ms. Canary’s husband, William Canary, say that he had discussed the prosecution with Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser.

Of course I already have concluded that Siegelman and others like him, including Paul Minor, et al, will not see justice under AG Holder. Why? Well - and I am speculating, so keep that in mind -consider why Ted Stevens case was dropped: prosecutorial misconduct.

There is more than enough evidence of prosecutorial misconduct on the part of both Ms. Canary and her counter-part, the US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, Alice Martin. There is more than enough evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in the Paul Minor case as well on the part of former US Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, Dunnica Lampton. Yet those cases are not only still unaddressed by AG Holder, the US Attorneys remain in office. Although Lampton has resigned, his office is still made-up of the same political henchmen who participated in the political prosections in that state, including Assistant US Attorney Ruth Morgan. So why the Stevens' case and not the Siegelman, et al cases? My feeling is that what separates the Stevens' case from the others is exactly what the others have in common with each other - allegations of White House involvement.

Since the Obama administration is not interested in looking back (because the Constitution is just a piece of paper apperently for all involved, regardless of party affiliation), the cases of Siegelman, Minor, et al will likely not be addressed. Those cases fall directly on the path that Obama does not want to go down, whereas Stevens' case is outside of that path and therefor, not a looking back per se. I am hoping I am wrong. Perhaps AG Holder will actually clean up the DOJ so that the public might once again come to believe that we are a nation of laws. But he has gotten off to a very questionable start. Stevens' case was not remotely as urgent as that of Minor, whose wife just died of cancer while he was in prison, or that of Siegelman, who cannot find employement and is unable to support his family. In fact, Stevens never even stepped foot into a prison, while Siegelman spent nearly a year and Minor is still in jail, well into his second year.

[annabanana]

1. That the DOJ hasn't visited these cases yet is VERY troubling.

Mr. Holder has a lot of work to do.
k&r

[rhett o rick]

2. I second that thought. nm

[Hissyspit]

3. The best that I can tell, Holder could have intervened to allow Minor to go to his wife's funeral.

And didn't. If anyone knows otherwise, please post. Minor is like Siegelman, not guilty of anything.

Via Mark Crispin Miller's News Underground:

From: Jill Simpson

I wanted your readers to know that the DOJ chain of command directly places AG Holder over
the head of the Bureau of Prisons. You can check this out at the DOJ website.

Folks don't buy that Mr Holder couldn't have picked up the telephone and let Mr Minor go to the funeral. He could have, and that is why he remained silent. In fact, the buck stops with him.

I discovered the DOJ chain of command chart when they were jerking Don Siegelman around, flying him from here to there. AG Holder just needs to come out and admit he ain't going to do anything to help Paul Minor, Gov. Siegelman, Mr Teal or Mr. Scrushy. He should admit that the only folks he has helped has been Republican phone-jammer James Tobin and Republican Senator Ted Stevens.

Amazingly, Holder found the time to respond to their pleas for help but not to answer calls from Democrats who put his boss in office. One has to wonder what kind of file Karl Rove has on Holder, since it was recently reported by the press that Karl keeps files even on his GOP allies.

DANA JILL SIMPSON

[cascadiance]

4. When they let Brent Wilkes out of prison to see his daughter's graduation...

and eventually let him out on bail for his appeal, there's one more example of the double standard at work here...

[EFerrari]

5. If they're trying to avoid the appearance of partisanship

they're over correcting. What they did to Minor was shameful.

[Poiuyt]

9. That's what I think is going on

Obama is trying too hard to not look bipartisan. It's a mistake, IMHO, because the Republicans are just going to shit on him no matter how hard he reaches out to them. In the meantime, Bush and his minions are going to get away with crimes against our Constitution and crimes against humanity.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of "bipartisan" so folks won't

think you're uneducated?

[Poiuyt]

18. Whoops!

I meant trying too hard to not look partisan.

[annabanana]

17. Letting Minor visit his wife would have have had no effect on his trial..

I really don't understand what kind of "down side" he might have seen to doing that. . . .

[L. Coyote]

28. I disagree

AG Holder has too much on his agenda. DoJ had to respond to the Stevens case due to a court ordered schedule.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. This is a whole bunch of broohaha about nothing. I wonder how many

people in this country would love to have the DOJ handle their cases personally? I like Don Siegelman, but the whining on his behalf, has become tiring. Hopefully there's a plan in place to review his case, and that of Minor, but had the DOJ made this their top priority, they would have been accused of the same thing that Siegelman is accusing the Bush administration of (politicism).

Hopefully, the exoneration of Stevens will make Siegelman's case all the more urgent & non-political. As our very astute S.O.S. said before Congress yesterday, we didn't get to where we are overnight, and it's going to take some time to turn around this ship of state.

Honestly people, the Obama administration is not your personal pinata, just because you keep whacking away at them, doesn't mean you're going to have your "special interest" addressed and fixed, in the first 100 days.

[Hissyspit]

7. "Whining?"

While it is true that the Stevens case may be setting the groundwork for the addressing of the Siegelman case, it is also true that it may be not. And it is also true that it would come to late in addressing in the issues in Minor's case, as his wife is now dead. I do look forward to DOJ continuing the reversal of the corruption of the department under the Bush administration, but "brouhaha about nothing?" Not hardly.

I have to say I'm not quite sure what philosophy espouses that you should just simply stop addressing important issues to your government.

[blm]

20. At its core Siegelman's case is about the election theft of 2002 and 2004. Establishment DC will NOT

go down that road (because it couldn't have been pulled off without some key cooperation from some powerful Dems who also had a vested interest in keeping Kerry out of the WH and keeping Bush IN it) and no doubt has made that very clear even before Obama took office.

[EFerrari]

16. You have no idea what they did to Don Siegelman

or through him, to us, do you?

And the only whining I see on this thread is yours.

[suffragette]

21. I don't understand how asking for justice can be described as whining

or special interest.

You note that "Hopefully, the exoneration of Stevens will make Siegelman's case all the more urgent & non-political." I thought a major part of the issue was that the prosecution of Siegelman was politically motivated. Not sure it can be addressed appropriately without taking that into account.

Even the ever growing number of attorney generals who keep pressing on this issue bring up the aspect of fairness and due process. Why shouldn't we also continue to press for justice?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/22justice.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=siegelman&st=cse

Less than a month after the Justice Department asked a judge to drop the case against former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska because of prosecutorial misconduct, 75 former state attorneys general from both parties have urged Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to conduct a similar investigation of the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, who was convicted nearly three years ago on bribery and corruption charges.

In a letter to Mr. Holder, the attorneys general said Mr. Siegelman’s defense lawyers had raised “gravely troublesome facts” about his prosecution that raise questions about the fairness and due process of the trial.

“We believe that if prosecutorial misconduct is found, as in the case of Senator Ted Stevens, then dismissal should follow in this case as well,” the group said in the letter, which was organized by Robert Abrams, a former attorney general of New York.

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. I stand by "whining". I think you misunderstood my primary point, which

is that I Siegelman's case cries out for review, but the incessant carping at the administration, from him & his supporters is IMHO, not helpful. Can you imagine the ton of cases that have landed on AG Holder's desk, in just these past couple of months? Siegelman went to prison, nothing can give him back that time, but my hope is that he will eventually be vindicated. I don't get the special urgency, since he's already done his time.

[EFerrari]

32. In America, we have the right to petition our government.

If you want to call that "incessant carping", that's your right. And, Siegelman is about to go back to jail if something isn't done, iirc.

[suffragette]

36. I think demanding justice and righting a wrong merit urgency

and I disagree with characterizing that as whining or carping.
I can agree with you that he should be vindicated.

There's also the matter of those who wrongfully prosecuted Siegelman. Isn't reviewing this case the proper way to bring those wrongs to light, sanction the wrongdoers and perhaps keep someone else from being unjustly treated?

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. Yes. Whining. Why was the Siegelman case supposed to be Eric...

Holder's first priority? And I suspect, if the whining continues, they may just finally turn a deaf ear to his plight, completely.

Don't get me wrong, I empathize with Gov. Siegelman's situation, but can his inability to find work be blamed on Eric Holder? I, too, want just for any wrongdoing, but I don't want the Obama administration to be caught up in the same political shitstorm that brought about Siegelman's prosecution in the first place.

I realize that a lot of "progressive" bloggers are still searching for relevance against the new Democratic administration, but the constant carping from the left only serves to push moderates like myself further to the right. And no, I'm not DLC. I find myself smack dab in the middle of Evan Bayh and Dennis Kucinich.

This was intended as a reply to post #7. Sorry.

[Hissyspit]

10. I am not "searching for relevance" at all. I would be quite happy to go back to puttering around out

in the yard and watching Netflix movies.

But life doesn't work that way.

Using your own logic, why was Stevens' case first priority? The DOJ can address these issues without being caught up in a shitstorm. They just have to do what is right.

You can be pushed further to right because people are addressing issues to their government?

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. Sadly, yes. Unfortunately, it seems that moderate voices ge drowned out

in both parties. It's the extremes who make the most noise, and usually wind up with a microphone shoved in their faces.

I'll leave it to AG Holder as to why the Stevens case was at the top of his list. Maybe he's working his way backwards? I have no doubt they'll get to the Siegelman case, as it should be, but honestly there's a limit to the screeching. And I don't get why Siegelman thinks his case is any more urgent than the thousands of others that must have landed on the AG's desk.

This is just a whole lot of supposition, and second guessing that really should be left to the rightwing whackos.

p.s. Is there a chance that Holder has taken a look at the Siegelman case, and found that all is not as Siegelman claims? And was this case ever heard by the USSC?

[Hissyspit]

12. Siegelman claims?

I see you don't know much about the case. No, it hasn't gone to the USSC.

From wikipedia: In July 2007, 44 former State Attorneys General, both Democrats and Republicans, filed a petition to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees requesting further investigation of the Siegelman prosecution.

April 9, 2009:
Holder Says Not Reviewing Siegelman Prosecution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3825220

April 22, 2009:
75 Former AGs seek review of Ala. gov's conviction (Siegelman)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3844424&mesg_id=3844424

There is plenty of research here on why the Siegelman and Minor cases are political prosecutions and that the men are not guilty of the crimes of which they were convicted:

http://rawstory.com/larisa_alexandrovna.php

and google Scott Horton at Harpers.

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. I know the case, just wasn't sure if it had been before the USSC.

I'm just saying that AG Holder, who I think is a man of integrity, must have his (legal) reasons for not revisiting this case? Is there even the most remote possibility that he knows what he's doing, despite the 44 AG's who disagree?

Look, I'm on your side, but I think the tone of this thread was meant to slam the AG, and I just think that's totally unhelpful, and may in the end, seal the Gov's fate.

[EFerrari]

15. So, in your opinion, the NYTs shouldn't raise the question?

And RawStory shouldn't report it? And we shouldn't talk about it?

[madfloridian]

22. It was "unhealthful" for Siegelman to spend 9 months in jail.

The tone of this thread is exactly what we need.

If Ted Stevens is walking around a free man because Holder took on his case....then it is way past time for Siegelman's case to get a public hearing.

[EFerrari]

30. You bet it is.

:kick:

[madfloridian]

23. I intend to keep "whining" as you so snidely say. I will keep whining.

It is time for Holder to hear Siegelman's case.

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. Mad, we always got along, but I have to say that our priorities have drifted.

It's glaringly obvious that you have a thorn in your shoe about the new administration for some perceived slight. I'll let you deal with that, say good day, and leave it at that.
:hi:

[madfloridian]

31. Siegelman did not deserve what happened to him.

I think our Democrats fear Karl Rove and his media power. They fear something, or they would not let Siegelman and Minor's cases go like this.

Something is wrong when Ted Stevens goes free and they do not.

Yes, there are some things I criticize about this administration. Mostly my gripe is their education policies, but something must be done about these men.

[Richard Steele]

19. K&R

[madfloridian]

24. Recommended.

.

[bleever]

25. K&R.

and :kick:

[EFerrari]

29. Kick

[Cha]

33. Good! Keep the awareness and

pressure on to get the Don Siegelman case the attention it needs.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

34. K&R

Thank you Hissy & Lala :loveya:

Mr. Holder, this case needs reviewing more than Stevens ever did.



:kick:

[merh]

35. kick

:kick: