Holder Not Reviewing Siegelman Prosecution

[slipslidingaway]

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/legal_beat/2009/04/holder-not-reviewing-siegelman.html

"Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is moving to revamp Justice Department procedures in the wake of the prosecutorial debacle in the Ted Stevens case. But Holder said today that he is not reviewing the Justice Department's prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Donald Siegelman on corruption charges, nor other corruption cases involving Alaskan officials.

The House Judiciary Committee has been probing allegations that the Siegelman case was politically motivated by the Bush administration. Siegelman, a Democrat, was convicted in 2006.

"I don't have any reviews under way at this point, but I always want to ensure that the Justice Department acts in a way that is consistent with the long tradition of this great department," Holder said.

Holder, who has been sounding out attorneys throughout the department's Criminal Division, is preparing to announce some changes in the department's procedures for such prosecutions, however."

[brentspeak]

1. In other words, Obama is more concerned with pleasing Republicans

than he is in governing the way he should. And Holder is a complete waste of space.

[dbackjon]

2. Why do you hate Obama and America?

Obama is perfect and no criticizism of him is allowed here on ObamaUnderground.

[Cha]

5. That's not true 'cause you

crap on him all the time.

[dbackjon]

12. I love having my own personal stalker here at DU

Love you

[sharp_stick]

6. Shit you don't even wait to see it happen

before posting that do you? Do you have that handy dandy little quip on a quick-key or something?

[slipslidingaway]

15. Why not take up the Siegelman case as quickly as the Stevens

case.

:shrug:

[SeaLyons]

3. That really makes me mad...I guess

the Siegelman case gets to close to Rove/Bush. Very disappointing.

[sharp_stick]

4. The DOJ is examining the case

"The Justice Department’s internal watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility, is investigating allegations by former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman that he was targeted for prosecution because he is a Democrat. Siegelman is appealing a ruling by a three-judge federal appeals court that upheld his conviction. Democrats in Congress have also questioned the merits of the prosecution."

Why does everyone continue to believe just what they want to believe?

oops forgot the link:

Thanks to slipslidingaway for posting below

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&refer=politics&sid=aIWsytNm3m6g

[brentspeak]

8. Where is that passage from?

[slipslidingaway]

13. Here's the link....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&refer=politics&sid=aIWsytNm3m6g

[sharp_stick]

17. Thanks

I forgot to post it, my bad.

[slipslidingaway]

28. You're welcome, at least you gave the full quote :) n/t

[brentspeak]

18. That's from April 3; the OP's article is from yesterday

The new article says that Holder has reversed himself on the issue: he's not going to review the Siegelman case, after all.

[slipslidingaway]

21. Yes I noted the dates as well, why not state that it is being

investigated by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility.

:shrug:

[brentspeak]

22. I don't know, but the link in the OP says that no review is being conducted

If that's true, then the Office of Professional Responsibility is not conducting an investigation into the case.

[slipslidingaway]

25. Playing with words??? Siegelman is asking for our help so we

should write regardless of what is said or not being said IMO.

[ellacott]

23. The new article doesn't say that

It said he's not reviewing it now.

[brentspeak]

26. That's what my post said

[ellacott]

27. No

[brentspeak]

29. ??

[ellacott]

31. You edited your post

Because he's not reviewing it now doesn't mean he never going to review it.

[brentspeak]

33. Doesn't say he *may* be reviewing in the future, either

Are you saying that the article's header is misleading?

[ellacott]

34. This can keep going around in circles, It ain't that hard

There is a possiblity that he may never review this case but that is not what he said. He said he is not reviewing it at this time.

Because it doesn't say "never" or "may" means that no one should draw definitive conclusions based on this article.

[brentspeak]

35. So what you're saying is that the article is just a waste of everyone's time

Regardless, I didn't post that Holder said he would "never" review Siegelman's case, nor did I edit any of my previous posts to alter anything along those lines. If and when Holder actually announces that he will review Siegelman's case, that is when you can say there had always been a possibility he would review the case.

[ellacott]

36. Why do you keep putting words in people's mouths?

Too funny.

I said what I meant. I can say there is a possiblity whenever I feel like it.

You keep trying to dance around words.

[asphalt.jungle]

9. all these responses are based on what the author wrote and not what holder said anyway

you can base many articles around this quote:

"I don't have any reviews under way at this point, but I always want to ensure that the Justice Department acts in a way that is consistent with the long tradition of this great department," Holder said.

[slipslidingaway]

11. Why didn't he state that when asked??? Do you think Holder could

move this investigation forward if he wanted as was done in the Stevens case?

Here's the link for your quote
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&refer=politics&sid=aIWsytNm3m6g


A call-to-arms from Don Siegelman

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2009/04/a-call-to-arms-from-don-siegelman.html

"..It’s been a long time since we have seen the DOJ act courageously. Attorney General Holder’s action gives me hope that justice can be restored and our democracy can be preserved.

An important difference between the Stevens case and my case is that I was not accused of taking even a penny for myself. In my case there are many instances of government wrongdoing. American Trial Lawyer Magazine tagged me as America’s number one “Political Prisoner,” Time Magazine said I was a victim of selective prosecution, and CBS’s 60 Minutes exposed that the government used false testimony to convict me and withheld critical documents from my lawyers. The House Judiciary Committee even has sworn testimony that Karl Rove was involved in my prosecution as well as other serious prosecutorial misconduct.

Attorney General Holder threw out the case against Ted Stevens because the government withheld information that could have been critical to the outcome of Senator Stevens’ trial.

There’s far more prosecutorial misconduct in my case than in the Stevens case. Please read this letter from my lawyer to the Attorney General (PDF) which outlines some of those areas of misconduct..."

[Uzybone]

19. How many prosecutors lay all thier cards on the table?

Holder is the chief law enforcement office of the US, not a political sideshow. He shouldn't say whatever people want to hear just for politics sake.

[slipslidingaway]

39. This information was already published in the Bloomberg article

quoted above and is not something new.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. He's not reviewing a few thousand other troubling...

prosecutions, either.

Prosecutors were overzealous, but where did they do anything with Siegleman that could have gotten them disbarred?

[brentspeak]

16. So he shouldn't review Siegleman's case because apparently he's ignoring other cases?

Inaction is a rationale for inaction?

As it so happens, the issues involving the Siegelman case reach into possible misconduct leading all the way up to the (previous) White House, not to mention many people still working at DOJ who Holder is supervising. Forty-four former state attorney generals felt strongly enough about the Siegelman case to petition Congress for a formal investigation to begin.

[TreasonousBastard]

37. And Congress is working on it...

but White House politicking is not necessarily sufficient reason for an internal investigation. There are few cases where the judgment of the prosecutors can't be questioned, but they have the authority to proceed on the cases as they see fit. If all such cases were up for review, they wouldn't be doing anything else.

Those 44 prosecutors were mainly up in arms over the sentencing, which was excessive but within permissable guidelines. Nothing like manufacturing or hiding evidence has been seriously charged. And Siegelman's appeal is going fine, with him out on bail, too. It's too bad he has to go through this, but unless the entire system is changed, all of us are at risk of it.

(How about the thousands in prison now on lesser charges with longer sentences, and who may be innocent after all?)

[Uzybone]

10. perfect headline for DU fools to take the bait

why do people persist in posting things like this?

[dbackjon]

14. What, the truth?

[sharp_stick]

20. The department holding the review is

different from Holders domain. The internal watchdog works independantly of the AG.

[brentspeak]

24. "The Office of Professional Responsibility, which reports directly to the Attorney General..."

http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/

The Office of Professional Responsibility, which reports directly to the Attorney General, is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice, as well as allegations of misconduct by law enforcement personnel when they are related to allegations of attorney misconduct within the jurisdiction of OPR.

The objective of OPR is to ensure that Department of Justice attorneys continue to perform their duties in accordance with the high professional standards expected of the Nation's principal law enforcement agency.

The Office is headed by the Counsel for Professional Responsibility. Under the Counsel's direction, OPR reviews allegations of attorney misconduct involving violation of any standard imposed by law, applicable rules of professional conduct, or Departmental policy. When warranted, OPR conducts full investigations of such allegations, and reports its findings and conclusions to the Attorney General and other appropriate Departmental officials.

The Office also serves as the Department's contact with state bar disciplinary organizations.

The Counsel submits an annual report to the Attorney General. The annual report discusses the work of OPR and provides summaries of cases closed during the year. In addition, OPR identifies significant trends in allegations of attorney misconduct, and makes recommendations to the Attorney General on the need for changes in policies or procedures that become evident during the course of internal inquiries reviewed or initiated by the Office...

[slipslidingaway]

30. Thanks for the link, you would think Holder could push this

investigation forward.

[AtomicKitten]

32. This case was recently reviewed and severarl charges upheld.

However, the evidence that Karl Rove orchestrated this witch hunt is overwhelming. Last time I checked, that's against the law.

[slipslidingaway]

38. Links to a couple of other threads on this issue....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5425395&mesg_id=5425395

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3825220&mesg_id=3825220

[masuki bance]

40. Siegelman must be guilty then, no?

[slipslidingaway]

41. Maybe just a lower priority??? n/t

[AtomicKitten]

42. It shouldn't matter when it comes to prosecutorial misconduct.

It was pretty clear Stevens was guilty and a half.

I believe there's sufficient evidence that Karl Rove orchestrated the prosecution of Siegleman for political reasons.