Just when you think the Obama administration's performance on justice issues in Alabama can't get any worse . . . it does.
Now we know why Obama waited more than two years to nominate a replacement for Bush appointee Leura Canary in the Middle District of Alabama. He apparently planned to nominate someone who is almost as bad as she is . . . so, why rush it?
George Beck, from the Montgomery firm of Capell and Howard, is the administration's choice, according to a press release issued yesterday. Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that the White House would have needed to strive awfully hard to come up with a worse choice than Beck. The Alabama Democratic Party issued a statement supporting the nomination, which speaks volumes about why Democrats can't win a statewide race in "The Heart of Dixie" to save their souls.
How bad a choice is Beck? Consider a post we wrote on January 7, 2010, which described a possible Beck nomination as a "train wreck."
What do you really need to know about George Beck? Two things:
* His firm has been known as a base of operations for GOP strategist Karl Rove when he comes to Alabama;
* He represented Nick Bailey, the government's star witness in the Don Siegelman case, and allowed prosecutors to browbeat Baily and interview him more than 70 times, including what appears to be blatant coaching.
We outlined the case against Beck in a post from more than a year ago, titled "Is Obama About to Make a Terrible Nomination in Alabama?" Unfortunately, we now know the answer is yes.
We can think of only one explanation for the Beck nomination: Centrist Alabama Democrats, the ones who apparently are in charge of a sinking ship, have decided that Don Siegelman is political kryptonite and they want to distance themselves from him, his case, and his supporters. The centrists seem to be saying, "Hey, maybe the Bush Justice Department was right about Siegelman, so we need to nominate a man whose pathetic representation of a key witness allowed the government to get a conviction."
The White House seems to be saying, "Yeah, that's change we can believe in!"
Never mind that anyone with any knowledge of the facts and the law knows that Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy were railroaded. Never mind that Don Siegelman remains an immensely popular figure among progressives, both in Alabama and nationwide. Never mind that numerous respected individuals in the press and the legal field have stated that the prosecution was without merit. Never mind that Don Siegelman is pretty much the only Democrat remaining who has shown he has a clue about consistently winning statewide races in Alabama.
With George Beck in office, the Republicans who have turned Montgomery, Alabama, into one of the nation's worst political sewers can rest assured that they will never be held accountable. And the Beck nomination represents Alabama Democrats essentially dragging a sharp razor across their own wrists. Death by massive bleeding shouldn't take long.
As for Obama, the Beck nomination might be a warning sign that he is going to have major problems in 2012.
If this sleaze of a lawyer is confirmed, we can all watch round 2 of the prosecution of Alabama Democrats. KKKarl Rove will be making regular use of his office in Montgomery.
Wrong object to focus on.
Rove is not the perpetrator, he may be giving calls, but he is not the one doing this. Henchmen are the boots on the ground. And necks.
We know who they are don't we LS?
Just when you think the Obama administration's performance on justice issues in Alabama can't get any worse . . .
Neil H. MacBride was nominated by President Obama as the 59th United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and was confirmed unanimously on Sept. 15, 2009.
He then filed a claim with the government under the Hyde Amendment. After a two-day hearing, U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan awarded the Hollands $570,000 toward their $1.6 million in legal fees, terming the government’s actions "vexatious.
MacBride also served as a law clerk for the Honorable Henry C. Morgan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia in Norfolk.
"the Beck nomination might be a warning sign that he is going to have major problems in 2012."
I won't be voting for him again. I live in a solid-red state so my Democratic vote for president doesn't count anyway, but I will not vote for him again.
Obama has gotten the only vote he will ever get from me. His promises of "change we can believe in" are nothing but catchy phrases designed to tell people what they want to hear. In retrospect, the Obama campaign was nothing more than a cheap circus act which might as well have promised a bearded lady and a two-headed baby. Next November, I think I'll pass on 4 more years of "change we can believe in."
George Beck is a qualified attorney with the experience and strength to handle the job as is should be handled. This from a criminal defense lawyer who has gotten to know George over the years, who supported him in this nomination, and who knows, through experience, all of the players on the prosecution and defense sides in the Middle District of Alabama.
By the way, I haven't heard any retractions on your negativity toward Wallace Capel as he continues to hold the Government to its constitutional obligations in the bingo case. Perhaps you jumped the gun in your initial criticism. Perhaps an apology is called for.
Well good. The corruption can continue at the US Attorney's Office without interruption.....really a shame for all.
Joe: I think you need to go back and read my post on Judge Capel. It wasn't about "negativity"; it was about a fact. The man is not eligible, by law, for the position he holds. It had nothing to do with his qualifications or performance as a judge. He simply is not eligible under the law. Of course, the law seems to be of little interest to the legal community in the Middle District of Alabama--or in the other districts either. No apology is in order because my post was factual. If the government, the legal community, and the mainstream press want to stick their heads in the sand about a judge who is ineligible . . . well, that's up to them. I've done my job, as a reporter
At62...after 11 presidents, I have not witnessed a weaker, more transparently shallow man in the Oval Office. Mr Obama has no centering moral compass...his main motivating drive is $$$ for re-election. The question is How much $$$ does Wall Street need to stash in his coffers to get the job done. He has lost (what did he call them?...f------ moronic liberals!!) much of his base. When you loose the people you need Wall Street money...curiously, he has chosen to opt for the later.
I am not of Wall Street...HE HAS LOST MY VOTE.
@Joe: The question is whether the nominee has the stones to stand up for real justice (not the selective prosecution type). After all, he is no stranger to the miscarriage(s) of justice in the Middle District of Alabama. He had a front row seat to the Siegelman prosecution and actually represented a key witness. We see how that turned out. The next public corruption investigation needs to be of Canary and her henchmen.
Post a Comment