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.