Monday, October 8, 2007

Bob Riley and Quid Pro Quo

The current issue of Time magazine has a major story about the Bush Justice Department and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. The article, in the country's premier newsweekly, has understandably put the prosecution team on the defensive.

One point, made by prosecutor Steve Feaga, jumps out at the Legal Schnauzer. Feaga struggles to explain why allegations by witness Lanny Young against Republicans Jeff Sessions and William Pryor were ignored while those against Siegelman, a Democrat, were taken with the utmost seriousness. That sure as heck sounds like selective prosecution, the subject of a Congressional investigation.

But wait, there is an explanation.

Acording to Feaga, Young never claimed to get anything in return for the contributions to Sessions and Pryor while he did make such allegations about Siegelman. "At the time Lanny was detailing having made contributions to other public officials, he characterized these contributions as legitimate. There was no understanding he would get something for them," Feaga says.

Hmmm. Feaga is saying there was no quid pro quo in the Sessions and Pryor cases, but there was in the Siegelman case.

Quid pro quo is a Latin term meaning "something for something." If a quid pro quo was not present in the Sessions and Pryor cases, I know of a case involving a Republican where one clearly was involved.

I'm talking about the well-known biotech deal in Huntsville, engineered by Alabama Governor Bob Riley. That case certainly involved something (a nice campaign contribution for Teflon Bob) for something (scads of state money for a biotech center in Huntsville, bypassing the state's biomedical center in Birmingham at UAB).

Well snip my pickle and call me Shlomo, there's a quid pro quo. Somebody call Steve Feaga and his compadre Louis Franklin. I'm sure they will jump right on this case.

And by the way, talk about a double standard with the Bush DOJ. In Alabama, the Bushies are extremely concerned about the lack of a quid pro quo when charges are leveled at Republicans. In Mississippi, in the Paul Minor prosecution, Democrats were prosecuted and convicted even though a quid pro quo clearly did not exist. In fact, the jury instructions specifically told jurors that a quid pro quo did not have to exist.

I kid you not, and we will be laying this out in detail in the coming days.

Keep in mind, we're not talking about state courts, where the law in Alabama might differ from that in Mississippi. We're talking about federal court, under the big top. And yet one standard exists for quid pro quo in Alabama (involving Republicans) and another exists in Mississippi (for Democrats).

Remember Scott Horton's phrase--moral collapse. That's what we're talking about here.


Anonymous said...

You've been told this before but you keep refusing to acknowledge this fact: Gov. Riley didn't provide the incentives to the biotech company in Huntsville. Whoops! There goes your argument!

Anonymous said...

Roger thinks that people forget that he has beated this dead horse before. We haven't.

Anonymous said...

The Bob Riley sleaze machine is just about to have a huge monkey wrench thrown into its gears. The whole sordid Siegelman "corruption" ordeal will become America's biggest political scandal since the Watergate affair. Alabama, ready or not, hang on for a very wild ride.

legalschnauzer said...

I'm afraid you forget something. The biotech folks specifically said they went to Bob Riley to initiate this deal. That was reported in the press on several occasions. Didn't go to legislature, didn't go to some agency, they went directly to Bob Riley. We know that much. We surely would know more if someone would investigate. Of course, the documents uncovered by Time show that Republicans are not investigated by the Bush DOJ.

Nancy Swan said...

Okay, for the record - Siegleman and the Democrats were not guilty?? because (drum roll) Republicans were not prosecuted??? Well, lets just hang all of them with a Rpublican guilty plea or conviction and be done with it. Your argument is still lacking a solid base. Innocent by failure to prosecute all the guilty has never been a defense.

Anonymous said...

Tidy seems to be another of those republicans who just makes things up to obfuscate. Selective prosecution is not a result of the justice system not being able to punish every law violation. Selective prosecution violates the equal protection clause of the constitution and is a valid reason to over turn a conviction and if it is found that a law is regularly enforced unequally, the law can be thrown out.

Anonymous said...

What you forget is that the incentives to the biotech company weren't provided by Riley. A committee that oversees the Capital Improvement Trust Fund voted unanimously to provide the incentives. That committee includes Senator Roger Bedford (certainly no friend of Riley's) and another Democrat, Representative John Knight.

Nancy Swan said...

Anon pretends to know something about the Minor case. You don't. Minor and judges Whitfield were guilty of much more criminal conduct than they were convicted of. I know that because I was one of their many victims and I found the evidence. The Times did not find these guys innocent, a jury did. Doesn't matter who prosecuted or why. And Schnazer just because you got hurt by one group of judges does not mean the Minor and his cohorts are innocent. Very childish and dangerouse liason.