Karl Rove and the Stench That Follows Him

Wherever former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove goes, a foul odor seems to follow.

More evidence of that has come forth in recent days.

First, we had a report that Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, says his client is cooperating with an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)investigation into the Don Siegelman prosecution.

Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor at Harper's magazine, is not buying that one. OPR, Horton reports, probably is not conducting a legitimate investigation on the Siegelman matter anyway:

My guess: Rove and Luskin have concluded that OPR is not conducting a serious investigation of the Siegelman debacle; instead, it is engaged in a whitewash designed to cover-up the Bush Administration’s manipulation of the case. And if that’s their conclusion, they’re almost certainly right. OPR has been involved in investigations at the periphery of the Siegelman case already, and it has a perfect record of whitewashing and belittling expressions of concern about the prosecutors involved. To a significant measure, the scandal surrounding the politically motivated prosecution of Siegelman is also a scandal surrounding a toothless and dysfunctional OPR.

This is in line with our recent report that OPR, which is supposed to be investigating Alabama U.S. attorneys Alice Martin and Leura Canary, actually is investigating Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson in an effort to obtain information that could help Martin and Canary--and Rove--get off the hook.

Horton provides more insight:

TPM reports that the OPR’s report is nearing completion. Yet of the list of obvious witnesses who have furnished information concerning prosecutorial misconduct to date, it seems very few have been contacted or interviewed by OPR. A number of individuals who have been contacted have revealed the questions put to them by the OPR representatives: they revolved almost entirely around scandalous and completely irrelevant accusations targeting the principal witness who has leveled accusations at Rove. The OPR investigation into prosecutorial misconduct in going after Siegelman has been redirected, it appears, into an effort to vindicate Karl Rove.

OPR has also engaged and used individuals from the staff of one of the Siegelman prosecutors to conduct the investigation—hardly people likely to have an open mind as to whether his boss is guilty of misconduct.

I don’t know what the OPR report will state. But I am already persuaded that no serious investigation has been undertaken up to this point, and it is therefore not likely to be much more than yet another in a long line of whitewashes. And in the topsy-turvy world so typical of the Bush Justice Department, the OPR investigators seem to be doing Karl Rove’s bidding, rather than investigating Karl Rove.

Meanwhile, Adam Lynch of the Jackson Free Press has an outstanding overview article about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, which resulted in a prominent Democratic donor and two former state judges being wrongfully convicted on corruption charges and sent to federal prison. Like the Siegelman case in Alabama, the Minor prosecution appears to have Rove's fingerprints all over it.

Lynch points out the central role that bogus jury instructions played in the Minor convictions. The jury instructions came from U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, an African-American Reagan appointee. And they helped U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton obtain a conviction on retrial:

The prosecution followed federal requirements in Minor’s 2005 trial to show quid pro quo in jury instructions. Specifically, the quid pro quo requirement demands proof that “monies were provided” and “unlawful favors received.”

But Ronald Reagan appointee U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate made the fight easy for Lampton’s people the second time around, allowing that “there need not be a mutual intent on the part of both the giver and the offeree or acceptance of the bribe,” according to Minor’s 2008 appeal. Wingate also allowed the jury to find Minor guilty “even though you find that the (defendant judges’) rulings were legal and correct, that the official conduct would have been done anyway, that the official conduct sought to be influenced was lawful and required by law, and that the official conduct was desirable and beneficial to the public welfare.”

Now that no proof of the bribe was necessary, even Lampton proved capable of pushing a case for bribery against Minor.

In other words, Paul Minor and fellow defendants Wes Teel and John Whitfield were convicted of a crime that does not exist, under the law. It only existed in the world inhabited by a Republican-appointed federal judge--and a confused jury bought it. A third Mississippi state judge, Oliver Diaz, was acquitted twice on charges brought by Lampton related to the Minor case.

Lynch notes the connections of one man--Karl Rove--to both the Siegelman and Minor cases. Minor's attorneys, Lynch reports, say Rove's testimony under oath before Congress will be critical to reaching the truth about a Justice Department that produced political prisoners in the United States:

Minor’s attorney Hiram Eastland said he is encouraged by the new make-up of the Justice Department and the president’s office, and felt Rove’s testimony could have “huge” consequences. “We think they’re going to find out that Karl Rove was actually involved with the Justice Department and countless cases of political prosecution, and in the creation of nothing less than political prisoners,” Eastland said. “Congress is addressing the U.S. attorneys firing and all, but they’ve yet to get down to the questions that were raised about whether these prosecutions were political. We’re not aware that they’ve gone around and questioned anyone. There’s been very little follow-up after our letters to the Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility. We’re not saying the investigations won’t happen. They may have ultimately planned to get around to them anyway, but this was never meant to be a country where we take political prisoners and we’re encouraging Congress and the Justice Department to get to the bottom of these issues."

Rove Leads Effort to Harass Alabama Whistleblower

Officials in the Bush administration initiated an unlawful harassment campaign against Alabama whistleblower Dana Jill Simpson, and a news report indicates that Karl Rove started the campaign in an effort to defend himself against charges of using the Justice Department for political purposes.

Simpson, a north Alabama attorney and former Republican opposition-research volunteer, testified under oath that GOP operative William Canary had worked with Rove to instigate the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen now reports that Rove and Alabama U.S. Attorney Alice Martin are behind a harassment campaign against Simpson that has been going on for months.

Multiple sources have reported that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is investigating Martin and fellow Alabama U.S. Attorney Leura Canary for their roles in the Siegelman case and other apparent political prosecutions.

But according to the Wayne Madsen Report (WMR), OPR actually is conducting an unlawful investigation of Simpson, looking into the adoption of her 4-year-old daughter in 2004, her taxes, her previous rental properties, and legal cases she argued as a defense attorney. Several of Simpson's legal clients, business associates, and even her ex-husband have been questioned by federal officers, including FBI agents.

The goal, apparently, is to find information that could assist Rove, Martin, and Canary in defense of charges that they used the Justice Department for political purposes.

How could this happen? Madsen reports that the person charged with "investigating" Martin was one of her subordinates, Alabama Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Sullivan. In fact, Sullivan is considered one of Martin's top criminal investigators.

But instead of scrutinizing Martin, Sullivan has been investigating Simpson. And he has received assistance from William Causey, assistant counsel for OPR, Madsen reports.

OPR is legally authorized to investigate only possible corruption by government employees. Use of the office to investigate Simpson, a private citizen, would be an unlawful abuse of government resources, Madsen reports.

Madsen also has harsh words for U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), who is scheduled to announce his run for governor today in Birmingham:

WMR has also learned that one of Simpson's early supporters, Representative Artur Davis (D-AL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee who spent Super Bowl Sunday with Barack Obama at a White House party, has decided to abandon his defense of Simpson because he has gubernatorial ambitions. Davis, who would be Alabama's first African-American governor, has decided that it is more important to gain the support of the Business Council of Alabama, headed up by Leura Canary's husband Bill Canary, a major Republican official in the state and ally of current Republican Governor Bob Riley, than in getting to the bottom of the Siegelman's prosecution.

Guy Hunt Personified the GOP's Southern Strategy

Former Alabama Governor Guy Hunt was laid to rest yesterday, and many people remembered his country manner and simple virtues.

Others took a less charitable view of Alabama's first Republican governor since Reconstruction, noting that he was removed from office in 1992 for a felony ethics conviction.

In a splendid analysis at Osborne Ink, Alabama blogger Matt Osborne provides valuable insights into Hunt's rise and fall--and the deep red state he left behind. Hunt died last week, at age 75, from lung cancer.

Osborne's post, titled "The Strange Story of Guy Hunt," spotlights the critical role Hunt played in turning Alabama into a reliably red state. In fact, one could argue that Hunt played a "John the Baptist" role for the Republican Party in Alabama, paving the way for a much larger figure to come.

In John the Baptist's case, the larger figure was Jesus Christ. In Hunt's case, it was Karl Rove, who arrived on the scene in 1994 to start reshaping Alabama state courts into a Republican playground.

(I can't believe I just found a way to compare Karl Rove to Jesus Christ. Something just doesn't seem right about that.)

Many Alabamians recall Hunt as a simpleton who stumbled into the governor's office because of infighting between Bill Baxley and Charlie Graddick in the Democratic Party. But Osborne says that might be selling Hunt short. The one-time farmer from Holly Pond knew how to take advantage of a situation:

It wasn't that Hunt was a particularly attractive candidate; in today's terminology, Hunt was a paleo-Republican -- an anti-science, Bible-thumping member of the Council of Conservative Citizens. (Get it? CCC=KKK). He also had a history of self-dealing: Reagan had appointed him to a seat on a Department of Agriculture agency, and by 1985 he had been forced to resign or face prosecution for mismanagement of funds.

Indeed, his presence would never have been tolerated on a dominant-party ticket, but none of this made a dent in his sudden popularity. Alabama knew nothing about him, and didn't really want to know. His coalition was substantial, and he led it with crafted charisma. As a traveling Primitive Baptist preacher, Hunt appealed to the evangelical movement. As a member of the CCC, he appealed to white racists. As a Reaganite, he appealed to Reagan Democrats. A hobby farmer, Hunt had the aw-shucks demeanor of a good-old-boy grafted onto the slick salesmanship of an Amway salesman, which he was.

Hunt never seemed like "the sharpest knife in the drawer." But he didn't care. And in the end, he had a profound, if negative, impact on his home state:

Hunt's true legacy is in the Republican takeover of the south. It is in the redness of this region amidst a sea of blue last November. It is the defection of rural, white racists to the Republican party while declaring that the Democrats left them, and not the other way around. It is the know-nothing popularity of Sarah Palin, the Rovian secrecy of Bush, and the deliberate creation of a false "legacy." Hunt's story is Republicanism in miniature.

Hunt's story also represents some serious personal growth for your humble blogger. I can vividly recall standing in line in 1990, preparing to vote for Guy Hunt. In fact, I was so fed up with the Baxley-Graddick sideshow that I told Mrs. Schnauzer as we waited in line, "I don't think I'll ever vote for another Democrat."

(Memo to self: Be careful what you say. It might come back to remind you of how stupid you once were.)

Not long after that, I found Kevin Phillips' The Politics of Rich and Poor at the Birmingham Public Library, and after reading it, realized what an idiot I had been for voting Republican through much of the 1980s.

It pains me now to admit that I voted for Guy Hunt, not to mention Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush (although, having finally wised up, I voted for Bill Clinton when Bush ran for re-election in 1992).

It has been rewarding to move from a state of personal political ignorance to something approaching semi-enlightenment. I just wish more Alabamians would at least try to make similar journeys.

Sadly, a lot of folks who voted for Guy Hunt have been content to keep their minds set in concrete ever since. And our state is the poorer for it.

Are Alabamians Afflicted With a Mental Imbalance?

After living in Alabama for roughly 30 years, I've decided that a significant chunk of our population must suffer from a kind of mental imbalance.

(I can hear some people already: "It took you 30 years to figure that out?")

I'm guessing that quite a few folks in other red states must suffer from a similar affliction, so this is a national issue. And it seems to be coming to the forefront as the Barack Obama administration sets sail.

As regular readers know, we like to dabble in dime-store psychology from time to time here at Legal Schnauzer, but I'm stumped about what to call this newest mental imbalance.

It shows some characteristics of schizophrenia, particularly the thought disorder associated with that condition. But for lack of a better term, let's call it "Red State Syndrome" or RSS for short.

What brought RSS to our attention? Well, it jumped out at us from the front page of The Birmingham News a few days ago.

In the upper right-hand corner was a story titled "Hope for jobs rests on bailout." (The paper's headline writers must have been having a bad day; the story actually was about the economic-stimulus package, not the financial bailout plan.)

The story quoted several Alabama officials, saying that the stimulus package proposed by Obama and now being debated in Congress could bail out state budgets for next year. The package, officials said, could help state agencies and public schools avoid thousands of layoffs.

In short, Alabama's immediate economic future rests heavily on Obama's stimulus plan--and even Republicans admit that. "The stimulus package, if it passes, will make all the difference in the world for what our budgets will look like," said Jim Main, Governor Bob Riley's top budget advisor.

Federal Funds Information for States (FFIS) estimates that Alabama will receive $3.54 billion from the Obama plan. "I think that might prevent massive layoffs in both education and the General Fund," said State Sen. Lowell Barron (D-Fyffe).

We noted in a post yesterday that Alabama should change its state motto to "Wonderland of Irony." So, how's this for irony? Alabama, a state that went overwhelmingly for Republican John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, now is hoping to have its financial bacon saved by a Democratic president and his allies in Congress. In fact, Alabama was one of the five reddest states in the country in the presidential election, but now it's looking to Democrats for salvation.

Is that not enough irony for you? Well, consider this: At the bottom of the front page, in that same issue of The Birmingham News, was an article titled "Alabama's affection for New Deals fades."

The story says that Alabamians overwhelmingly favored President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s, with the state's two Democratic U.S. Senators (John Bankhead Jr. and Hugo Black) providing strong support.

What about Obama's present-day New Deal? Well, Alabamians are not so supportive of that. And our two Republican U.S. Senators (Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions) say they are against it.

A sub-headline on the story says, "State different from FDR days." Alabama unquestionably has changed since the 1930s. But that does not explain the state's lukewarm response to Obama's plan. So, what does? Well, it seems pretty clear: The benefits from the New Deal, in the pre-Civil Rights era, went almost entirely to white people. Some of the benefits of Obama's plan would go to people of color, and quite a few Alabamians are reluctant to see "those people" get help.

I suspect that sort of race-based distrust is the baseline condition in Red State Syndrome.

So you have Alabama officials of both parties saying the state's economic well-being is dependent on passage of Obama's stimulus package. But the citizenry is not supportive of the plan, and our U.S. senators are against it.

Some form of mental imbalance is the only explanation I can come up with for that kind of thinking.

Want one final dose of irony, one that hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer?

One of the biggest beneficiaries of the Obama plan would be Alabama public schools and universities. The plan includes $355 million for building renovations at Alabama public schools and colleges. It includes $586.1 million to help public schools and colleges avoid layoffs.

"If it were to fail and there be no congressional stimulus package, then we would be right back to square one, facing . . . massive, massive loss of jobs," Alabama School Superintendent Joe Morton said.

Morton went even further: "I pray with one eye closed, and I keep the other eye on C-SPAN. Until this thing got legs, we didn't have a hope on the horizon--and now we do."

By far the biggest recipient of federal dollars in Alabama education is my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). And UAB probably would get a huge chunk of change from the stimulus package, helping it avoid perhaps the largest layoffs in school history.

But consider the recent actions of UAB's leadership. It had a 19-year employee (me) who was writing a progressive blog on his own time. The blog, while primarily about justice more than politics, was critical of the Bush Administration and supportive of new leadership on the national stage.

What did UAB do? It jumped in bed with the very Bushies who caused Alabama's economic crisis in the first place and caved in to demands that I be unlawfully fired. In doing so, it stood against the kind of leadership that now could save UAB a huge loss of jobs.

President Carol Garrison, who upheld my termination even though her own grievance committee found it was wrongful, now has her hand out to Democrats who run the Alabama Legislature. And she is undoubtedly taking behind-the-scenes action to get her hands on Obama's stimulus money.

Shouldn't someone be asking tough questions about an institution that fires an employee for practicing Constitutionally protected free speech but can't wait to eat like a pig at the federal trough?

Alabama's Governor has Big Brass Ones

Many folks know Alabama as the "Heart of Dixie." But perhaps the state motto should be changed to "Wonderland of Irony."

Unfortunately, we suspect that many Alabamians don't get the irony that is going on right under their noses.

Consider what transpired yesterday in Montgomery, our capital city:

Republican Governor Bob Riley presented his annual State of the State address, focusing heavily on his plans to overhaul the state ethics law. Never mind that Riley, just two years ago, vetoed a tough ethics package that was aimed at members of his cabinet, among others. Now, with his second term beginning to wind down--2010 can't get here soon enough--Riley suddenly is for ethics reform.

That's ironic in itself. But to fully grasp the irony in Montgomery yesterday, you needed to step away from Riley's speech and visit the federal courthouse, where insurance executive John W. Goff was being tried on a variety of corruption charges--pretty much the same charges that were settled in an administrative-law case four years ago.

And who apparently instigated this prosecution against Goff, which appears to be a classic case of double jeopardy and political prosecution? Why, none other than Governor Riley himself.

According to reports from Harper's Scott Horton, Riley began pushing the U.S. Attorney's Office for the prosecution after Goff filed a lawsuit against Riley and other GOP operatives, claiming they had conspired to ruin his lucrative business. The suit included allegations that Riley and his son, Birmingham lawyer Rob Riley, had wrongfully laundered Mississippi casino money for the 2002 Alabama governor's race through their connections to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his partner, Michael Scanlon.

Riley did not want anyone looking into his ties to Abramoff. And U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, the wife of Riley associate Bill Canary, was more than happy to help take the heat off Teflon Bob.

That's why John W. Goff is being tried on trumped-up criminal charges. But did anyone in Alabama's mainstream press raise questions about Riley's own questionable ethics? Apparently not.

In recent days, we've had quotes like this from Riley: "This state will never be as good as it can be until we have ethical standards and transparency."

But does Riley seek transparency regarding his own actions? Consider some of Riley's apparent ethical lapses the press could have asked about:

* Votes for Don Siegelman that mysteriously disappeared overnight in Baldwin County, giving Riley a "victory" in the 2002 election;

* Contributions from wealthy Riley supporters that resulted in millions of state dollars going to a biotech center in Huntsville, which essentially duplicates facilities already present in Birmingham;

* Curious state contracts that seem to have wound up with family members and other Riley associates;

* Millions of Mississippi Indian gaming money that helped fund Riley's 2002 campaign;

* An e-mail that proved Riley's connections to Jack Abramoff, but was covered up by U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ);

* Possible violations of campaign-finance laws, a story that was ignored by Alabama's mainstream press;

Someone might ask Riley exactly what role he did play in the Goff prosecution.

And while they are at it, they might ask what role Riley's lieutenants played in my unlawful termination at UAB. I've been intrigued by audiotaped evidence that proves UAB officials were concerned about my support in the blogosphere for Don Siegelman, Riley's one-time opponent. Think anyone in the Riley camp might have wanted to shut me up once they discovered that I worked at a state university?

In a perverse way, you almost have to give Riley credit. It takes a pair of big brass ones to push for ethics reform while carrying massive loads of ethical baggage yourself.

But Riley's actions really have nothing to do with boldness or courage. He knows that most Alabamians won't even pick up on his blatant hypocrisy. And he knows no one in the state press corps will fire uncomfortable questions at him.

Hey, he's Goober Bob Riley, the governor who wears cowboy boots and sports a swooped-back Reaganesque hairdo--which we can be sure he never dyes because, like The Gipper, Goober Bob is a genetically superior being who is not prone to getting gray hair.

Bob Riley might be a goober, but he's smart enough to know that he lives in a "Wonderland of Irony." And he takes full advantage of it.

Political Prosecutions Continue in Alabama

George W. Bush might no longer be our president, but the political prosecutions that started under his watch are continuing--particularly here in Karl Rove's Alabama.

Insurance executive John W. Goff is on trial this week in U.S. District Court in Montgomery, Alabama, charged with 26 counts of fraud, embezzlement, and conspiracy. The trial is expected to last two to three weeks, and when it is over, America could have a new political prisoner.

The case involves possible wrongdoing by GOP officials at the very top of Alabama government, and it has received a fair amount of national attention. But based on my research, it appears that no major Alabama newspaper is covering the trial.

Curious isn't it, considering the case's myriad connections to disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff?

How did Goff get in trouble? He filed a lawsuit against Governor Bob Riley and other Republicans, claiming they had conspired to ruin his lucrative business. Goff's lawsuit contained allegations that the governor and his son, Rob Riley, had wrongfully laundered Mississippi casino money into the 2002 Alabama gubernatorial campaign, using Riley's connections to Abramoff and his partner, Michael Scanlon.

Desperate to keep the Goff lawsuit from reaching the discovery stage, Riley asked U.S. Attorney Leura Canary (who oversaw the Don Siegelman prosecution) to help make it "go away." Canary, whose husband Bill Canary had assisted with Riley's campaigns, was more than happy to help.

She hit Goff with criminal charges that mirror those that were settled in March 2005 in an administrative-law case brought by the Alabama Department of Insurance. At that time, 59 of 60 charges against Goff were dismissed, with him pleading guilty to one charge and paying a fine.

"I thought, until now, this whole matter was settled," Goff said. And he had good reason to think that. Language in the 2005 settlement agreement says Goff was released from "any and all claims, demands, charges (and) prosecutions . . . related to the subject matter" in the administrative-law case.

The Goff case does not involve the prosecution of a high-profile former governor. But in many ways, it might smell worse than the Don Siegelman case--if that is possible.

Consider the timeline:

* March 2005--Goff reaches a settlement in an administrative-law case brought by the Alabama Department of Insurance;

* March 2007--Goff files a lawsuit against Bob Riley and others. Among other things, Goff seeks to find out information about the source of the Riley's campaign funding in the 2002 governor's race. Goff, a former supporter, had allowed Riley to use his corporate airplane;

* September 2007--Scott Horton, of Harper's, reports that Riley is desperate to stop the Goff lawsuit from proceeding;

* April 2, 2008--Goff is indicted on charges that mirror those in the settled administrative matter;

* February 2, 2009--Goff's criminal trial begins in Montgomery, Alabama.

Most Americans are familiar with double jeopardy, the idea that you cannot face the same charges twice. But that concept evidently does not hold water at the U.S. Attorney's office in Montgomery, Alabama.

Barack Obama might be in the White House, but injustice continues in America's broken courts. The John W. Goff case is proof that Karl Rove's legacy of sleaze lives on.

Goff's friends and family members have started a Web site about the case. You can check it out at http://www.johnwgoff.com/.

Rove's Lawyer Is Pulling the Wool Over Our Eyes

Karl Rove's attorney says the former Bush White House strategist already is cooperating with Department of Justice (DOJ) officials regarding the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and will cooperate with an inquiry into the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, appears to be pulling an elaborate ruse, and one can only wonder if he hoodwinked TPM Muckraker's Murray Waas, the highly respected reporter who broke the story yesterday.

Alabama Web journalist Glynn Wilson provides a superb overview of what Luskin is trying to pull at his Locust Fork World News & Journal Web site.

Waas' story makes it sound as if Rove is happy to shine light on everything this side of the Bourne Conspiracy. But the story is filled with holes and does not ask some obvious questions.

For example, Luskin claims that Rove already has cooperated with the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the Siegelman prosecution. But we are left asking these questions:

* Who precisely did Rove "cooperate" with at OPR?

* Was it someone appointed by Bush or placed into a career position by the Bush administration?

* What does "cooperate" mean? Does that entail Rove taking questions under oath, with a court reporter present?

* Rove supposedly is "cooperating" regarding the Siegelman prosecution. But no one has suggested that Rove took part in the actual Siegelman prosecution. Rather, he is alleged to have helped set it in motion. Was Rove asked under oath about actions he took that led to the Siegelman prosecution?

* Rove supposedly does not plan to claim any "personal privilege." What in the heck does personal privilege mean here? That term usually is used in association with members of an assembly, such as Congress or another legislative body. How would such a privilege apply to Rove? Is Luskin throwing this term around to create confusion?

* If Rove is so happy to "cooperate" with OPR, why is he so reluctant to "cooperate" with John Conyers and the U.S. House Judiciary Committee?

At Locust Fork News, Wilson reveals that Luskin is a liberal and that he and Waas are long-time friends. Did Luskin use his friend to benefit a client (Rove) in a desperate position? Did Waas allow himself, and TPM Muckraker, to be used? Is Waas reeling Luskin in, with plans to reveal him as a shyster in future stories?

Wilson notes that OPR hardly could be called an "objective fact finder" in the Siegelman matter. OPR representatives have been talking to a number of individuals in north Alabama in an apparent attempt to smear Rainsville lawyer and Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson.

If Rove "cooperated" with anyone at OPR it probably was the type of folks who are trying to dig up nonexistent dirt on Simpson. After all, it was Simpson who testified under oath that Republican operatives connected to Rove were behind the Siegelman prosecution.

Priscilla Duncan, Simpson's attorney, tells Wilson the "rest of the story" version of what's going on with Rove and OPR. Luskin, she says, is "playing with us" and also playing fast and loose with the facts. Of course, he is free to do that when dealing with a reporter.

“Lawyers are free to lie to the press, but can lose their license if they lie in court and get caught,” Duncan said.

Wilson, with Duncan's help, shows us how clever Luskin is trying to be:

Luskin then insists that Rove doesn’t know anything about the Siegelman prosecution, she said.

“Did he know about the preliminary discussions that led to it? Did he talk with Leura Canary, his former partner’s wife? Or Alice Martin? We don’t know whether they’ve been invited to testify or not, but the committee’s subpoenas are a long and tortured process.”

Wilson and Duncan then get to the bottom line about Rove's supposed "cooperation." And as an example of Rove's wily ways, Duncan provides intriguing background about the 60 Minutes story on the Siegelman case:

In all that cooperation Luskin says Bush and Rove are so eager to give, she adds, “there is not one hint that it will be 1) under oath or 2) recorded. In other words, it’s the same ‘poison whisper’ campaign he offered the Judiciary Committee last year.”

“Rove’s entire career is to plant juicy stories with pliant media to steer the coverage away from him by implying that they are missing a much bigger story,” she said.

“Jill and I went through a full bore of Rove’s trivia with 60 Minutes when he called and visited their offices trying to plant all kinds of false suggestions about Jill to stop the Siegelman story. It’s the main reason the show was delayed from November to March — Rove’s lies made CBS executives nervous, and they needed the extra time to track down and debunk every horrid little story,” she said.

“If you recall, he never would appear on film for CBS 60 Minutes or be interviewed about Siegelman. He just wanted to poison the well, as apparently he is doing now."

What should happen now that an Obama Justice Department is being put into place? Duncan has some ideas:

“Better we get a special prosecutor and cut to the chase,” she said. “Conyers has gone about as far as he can go with this. If Rove does show up, Jill and I are expecting a barrage of filth and criminal accusations from him, as the much-promised OPR investigation appears to have nothing at all to do with investigating the prosecutors but has focused on trying to destroy her credibility. It is probably good that that report has not been issued, as it would most assuredly be sheltering the Bush appointees whose actions were called into question.”

In essence, Duncan says, Rove is like a basketball coach trying to work the clock:

“Don’t be misled by suggestions of some investigative panel, the statute of limitations is running on the most prosecutable offenses, indeed it has on the 2002 events,” she concluded. “The diddling is paying off.”

Video Emerges in Coach's Assault Case

A police video reveals University of Mississippi basketball coach Andy Kennedy pleading with an officer before his arrest on an assault charge.

"I'm begging you . . . this is a major deal, man," Kennedy says in the video, which was included in a report by Eric Flack of WLWT in Cincinnati.

Kennedy was arrested December 18 on charges of punching a Cincinnati cab driver while his team was in town to play the University of Louisville.

We have followed the Kennedy story for several reasons: It's an intriguing legal story, assault has been an issue on this blog, and the case has connections to the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), my former employer. Kennedy and two of his assistants, Bill Armstrong and Torrey Ward, are UAB graduates and former players and coaches at the university.

For good measure, the Kennedy case raises troubling questions about legal ethics and has generated a flurry of lawsuits, focusing on everything from defamation to the coach's sex life (or lack thereof).

Kennedy acknowledges in the video that he had a verbal altercation with the cab driver. Apparently nothing was captured on the video about the alleged assault.

The video shows that Kennedy knew immediately this would become a "national incident" and could be a major blow to his career. He pulls the "celebrity card" with the officers, to little effect.

In fact, the best part of the video comes when an officer takes a swipe at the local pro football team. "You think we've never arrested somebody that's made national media? . . . We deal with the Bengals all the time."

As for UAB, I suspect the university continues to provide an undercurrent in the Kennedy story. Here's why: As we reported earlier here at Legal Schnauzer, a source with strong connections in college athletics told me that Kennedy had been warned by Ole Miss officials about drinking, particularly his habit of going out with a boisterous group of friends after home games in Oxford, MS.

If that's the case, I suspect Kennedy's job might be on shaky ground at Ole Miss, particularly with a criminal trial set for April, after the college basketball season is completed.

UAB's current coach, Mike Davis, has been widely reported to be interested in the jobs at the University of Alabama and the University of Georgia, both of which came open recently.

I'm hearing that former UAB coach and Birmingham native Mike Anderson, now at the University of Missouri, is the frontrunner for the Alabama job--and that he would come in a heartbeat if offered.

Does that mean Mike Davis could wind up at Georgia? If so, he probably would be able to bring with him 6-10 DeMarcus Cousins, one of the nation's top-rated recruits.

From reading Blazer Talk, a UAB sports forum, it looks like quite a few Blazer fans would like for Davis to hit the road. His botched recruitment of Cousins and a recent mass exodus of players seem to have turned off many UAB fans. Davis' apparent thirst for the Alabama job also hasn't helped.

From my perspective, much of the Davis mess should be blamed on President Carol Garrison. Athletics answers directly to the president, and the department has had a number of festering problems under Garrison. In fact, the university as a whole has several serious problems that Garrison has either caused or failed to address. Meanwhile, she asks for more taxpayer dollars from one side of her mouth while she wastes money out of the other.

Whoever you blame for the problems with UAB basketball, the program appears to need new leadership. Who might provide that? My guess is that Andy Kennedy would love to provide it. And I think he is handling his legal problems in such a way as to position himself for the UAB job--should Davis bolt for Alabama, Georgia, or parts unknown.

As I noted in a previous post, I think the whole point of the loss-of-consortium lawsuit filed by Kimber Kennedy (the coach's wife) is to get the cab driver and the valet who supports his story to countersue her. That way, the lawyers from both sides can get together and settle the whole affair under Kimber Kennedy's name. She would pay the cabbie and the valet a nice chunk of change to settle the lawsuit, drop the civil claims against her husband, and drop the criminal case (if Cincinnati prosecutors agree, and I think they would).

The end result? The Kennedys--or their insurer--would be a little poorer. But Andy's record would be clear, both criminally and civilly. With no signs of criminal charges or a civil settlement under his name, he could claim a pristine record for future employers. This could be a nifty piece of lawyering by Kennedy's attorney.

Kennedy's preferred employer, if the job is open, probably would be UAB. Would this be a good thing, a possible win-win for coach and university? I think it might be. Kennedy is a likable, popular fellow, and I suspect most UAB fans would welcome him back and try to help put the Cincinnati mess behind him. My source says that he does not think Kennedy has a serious drinking problem, but that he needs to use better judgment and keep a lower profile.

Also, if Kennedy were to come to UAB, I suspect he would need to alter the makeup of his coaching staff. The Ole Miss staff is essentially a bunch of children, and one or two of the assistant coaches played prominent roles in the Cincinnati fracas.

There's no question that Andy Kennedy is a talented coach. His injury-depleted Ole Miss team recently pulled off upset wins over Kentucky and Mississippi State. Unlike Davis and Anderson, I don't think Kennedy would see UAB as a "stepping stone" job. Given the proper resources and support, I think he would be happy to stick around awhile at his alma mater--and that's something UAB basketball needs.

But Kennedy needs to surround himself with some real adults. If he were to hire several seasoned assistants and clean up his personal act, I think he could be a good fit at his alma mater.

Hiring Andy Kennedy, with the right conditions in place, could be the first good decision Carol Garrison has made in a while.

A Schnauzer Reports for Jury Duty

I am about to fulfill one of my civic responsibilities. Unfortunately, it will almost certainly be an exercise in futility.

Your very own Legal Schnauzer reports for jury duty this week in United States District Court in Birmingham. Given what I have written about certain judges, lawyers, and prosecutors, we probably will see Sheryl Crow bear Karl Rove's love child before I get selected to serve on a jury.

(That Crow/Rove reference brings some disturbing images to mind. I owe an apology to readers--and especially to the fetching Ms. Crow, who happens to be a splendid singer, a devoted liberal, and a great Missourian. She is from the Bootheel town of Kennett, MO, and is a graduate of the University of Missouri, my alma mater. Kennett, by the way, is near the New Madrid Fault, which is likely to produce a colossal earthquake one of these days.)

This is the third time I've been called to jury duty, so I'm not a newbie to the process--and I have a pretty good idea of what to expect. My first experience with jury duty came when I was among some 400 to 500 people in the pool for the Richard Scrushy financial-fraud case. That's the one that ended with an acquittal for the former HealthSouth CEO; he later was convicted in a corruption case involving former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and currently is in a federal prison in Texas.

My experience with the Scrushy case involved filling out a lengthy questionnaire that asked about our experiences with the justice system and our knowledge of the Scrushy matter. When I wrote truthfully about my experiences with the justice system, I knew we would see Barbra Streisand bear Dick Cheney's love child before I served on that jury.

(Darn, more disturbing images. Again, my apologies--especially to the great Ms. Streisand. By the way, thanks to my wife, I can say that I'm the proud owner of just about every album Barbra Streisand ever made. And thanks to my wife, I can say that I'm the proud owner of the complete Village People collection. Now how many people can say that? How many people would want to say that?)

After filling out the questionnaire, I was free to go. And when I called an automated phone system the next morning, I found that--surprise, surprise--my services would not be required for the Scrushy jury.

I've often wondered how the defense lawyers and prosecutors reacted when they read my questionnaire. It's possible they got a good chuckle out of it. It's also possible their pens caught on fire as they rushed to check my name off the juror list.

My second experience with jury duty came in Alabama state court, at the always lovely Shelby County Courthouse in fashionable Columbiana, Alabama. I've had so many charming experiences at the Shelby County Courthouse it's hard to keep track of all of them. But Mrs. Schnauzer and I caught one of them on videotape, and you can check that out here.

Actually, serving on jury duty was probably the most pleasant experience I've had in Columbiana, which would need a major renewal project to reach the level of "hellhole."

The day I was called for jury duty, the courthouse was packed with personal-injury cases involving car crashes. And in every case, State Farm Insurance was involved. They asked all potential jurors who had State Farm auto policies to raise their hands, and about half of us did. We were all excluded from those cases.

One other criminal case was on the docket, and we hung around for part of the afternoon to see if we might get called for that. Judge Hub Harrington told a group of us that the case involved events that were so horrible that he didn't want to say what it was about. Of course, that only made us want to know more about it. I'm guessing it involved child molestation or abuse, but it didn't matter in the end because the case wound up being delayed and we were sent home.

I don't look for anything that dramatic to be on the docket in federal court this week. And whatever cases come up, it's unlikely that I will be asked to stick around to help decide them.

In a way, that's too bad because I would kind of like to serve as a juror. I think it would be interesting, and I sure as heck would take it seriously. I also would make darn sure the actual law was followed, and I wouldn't cut deals with fellow jurors for the sake of expedience. I also wouldn't pretend that I am clueless about what's going on in the world--and about what goes on in our justice system.

In other words, I would be the "juror from hell," the kind of person that neither side wants anywhere near the jury room.

Can Super Bowl Ads Top This?

Today is Super Bowl Sunday, which means two weeks of hype will culminate with a football game that is likely to be pretty dreadful.

But don't worry about that. We'll still have plenty of Super Bowl ads to check out, and that's the best part of the game anyway.

This year presents one problem, though. The best ad of the football-playoff season has already been run.

Regular readers know that I'm a sports fan, but the Super Bowl started turning me off about XL years ago, not long after Joe Namath guaranteed a win and then backed it up when his New York Jets defeated the Baltimore Colts in Super Bowl III.

That shocker was followed by years of stupefyingly boring Super Bowls, and I finally realized that if you want to watch real football, catch the NFL playoff games leading up to the Super Bowl. That's because the big game itself tends to be a snoozefest.

Granted, last year's game between the New York Giants and New England Patriots was an exception, featuring an upset, a thrilling finish, and one of the great clutch plays in sports history:



Today's matchup between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Arizona Cardinals has all the makings of a return to Dullsville. I grew up a Cardinals fan, when they were in St. Louis, and have fond memories of watching standouts like quarterback Jim Hart, running back Johnny Roland, wide receiver Mel Gray, safety Larry Wilson, and cornerback Roger Wehrli. Heck, those Cardinals even had colorful offensive linemen, such as Tom Banks and Conrad Doebler.

But the Bidwell family that ran the team couldn't stand prosperity, so they screwed up the franchise and ultimately moved it to Arizona. Under the direction of the Bidwells, the Cardinals have long been one of the most dysfunctional organizations in sports. The franchise seems to finally be getting its act together, but the Steelers (one of the best-run organizations in sports) should win today's game handily.

But does it matter if the Super Bowl turns out to be a flop on the field? Heck, no. For more than XXX years, it's been about commerce more than coaches, pomp more than pigskins.

That's why many Americans will tune in today for two reasons: (1) The halftime performance by Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band; and (2) The string of uber-expensive commercials that usually includes a few delightful hits and quite a few grimace-producing misses.

Perhaps the worst miss in Super Bowl ad history has strong Birmingham connections. It was a 1999 "gem" for Just For Feet, a now-defunct, Birmingham-based footwear chain. Without going into details about the "premise" of the ad, let's just say it was trashed as confusing, mindless, and racist--and those were some of the nicer things said about it. Salon called it the "ad from hell." One Web site includes the Just for Feet debacle as one of the "seven most awful Super Bowl ads ever."

So what will be the best and worst ads in today's Super Bowl? That remains to be seen. But our cultural team here at Legal Schnauzer submits that the best ad of the football-playoff season has already been run.

It comes to us from the fine folks at Hardee's, the fast-food chain that still does biscuits and gravy better than anyone. This ad touts the restaurants' new chicken parmesan sandwich. For our money, it's a classic (the ad, not the sandwich.) Enjoy: