Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy recently filed appeals of their criminal convictions with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Our initial reaction? How much money is going to be wasted on a case that should have been kicked out of court before the first witness ever took the stand?
We showed in a recent series of posts that the district court in Montgomery, Alabama, and the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, cheated Siegelman and Scrushy on at least five major grounds.
Here is a shocking point to consider: It is undisputed that the alleged criminal transaction between Siegelman and Scrushy took place outside the five-year statute of limitations. Had the prosecution been forced to present an indictment with specifics regarding the time frame, the case would have been over before it started. But trial judge Mark Fuller allowed prosecutors to get by with a vague indictment. And the 11th Circuit refused to correct the error, even though the defense raised the issue in a proper manner for a case involving an unclear indictment.
A case that never should have gotten off the ground is going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court? That speaks volumes about the waste and corruption in our broken justice system.
Siegelman and Scrushy undoubtedly have taken huge financial hits from having to defend the case. And one can only guess at how much money the government has spent, when its prosecutors had to know that they never had a case to begin with.
Defense attorneys contend in court documents that the Supreme Court should hear the case in order to clarify what evidence is needed to prove a federal bribery case.
Actually, the evidence needed already is clear. The law requires an "explicit quid pro quo," a something-for-something deal. But the trial court in the Siegelman/Scrushy case did not require that in the jury instructions, and the 11th Circuit refused to correct the mistake.
The Siegelman/Scrushy case has no business going before the nation's highest court. The U.S. Department of Justice should request that the case against Siegelman/Scrushy be dismissed, as it did in the case of former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK). The DOJ then should conduct a criminal investigation of Judge Mark Fuller, the 11th Circuit's three-judge panel, the federal prosecutors who brought the case--and any political figures who might have instigated it.
They are the ones responsible for a massive waste of private and public resources.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
A Curious Federal Case Is Brewing in Mobile
We recently reported that threats against judges and prosecutors are on the rise. And now we have a report that a prisoner in Mobile, Alabama, has been charged with attempting to arrange a hit on a federal judge and prosecutor.
The prisoner is Edmond H. "Eddie" Smith IV, a well-known outdoorsman in south Alabama. Smith is a colorful, larger-than-life character who has received extensive coverage in the Mobile Press-Register over the past two years.
But the Mobile newspaper has largely neglected to report on key aspects of the Smith case, ones that indicate he almost certainly did not try to arrange a hit on anyone--and he should not be in prison at all.
We've been following the Smith case here at Legal Schnauzer since early June. And the more we learn about it, the more it smells like a non-political version of the Don Siegelman story.
What really is going on with the Eddie Smith case? Why has he been held in the Mobile County Jail for more than seven months, awaiting sentencing on a federal ammunition crime that court records indicate he did not commit?
We will be examining those questions in a series of upcoming posts.
For now, we know that Smith is accused of trying to arrange hits on U.S. District Judge William Steele and Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Bordenkircher. If convicted of solicitation of murder, Smith could be sentenced to as many as 20 years in prison. Smith pled not guilty to the charges on August 7.
The federal indictment alleges that Smith tried to hire a fellow inmate named Paul J. Albert and a person identified only as "E" to murder Steele and Bordenkircher. Albert has been convicted on counterfeiting charges, and his attorney indicates in a published report that he could receive a lighter sentence in exchange for his testimony against Smith.
The government's case appears to be built on the word of Paul J. Albert, who is virtually blind and deaf according to one source, and another person who does not even have a name at this point. Sounds like pretty shaky footing for a federal prosecution.
Sentencing on Smith's federal ammunition conviction--the reason he is in the Mobile County Jail in the first place--has been set for Thursday (August 27). Steele presided over that trial, and Bordenkircher was the prosecutor.
Eddie Smith might seem like an odd individual to compare to Don Siegelman. To our knowledge, Smith has no strong political affiliation. He is a hunter, gun enthusiast, and fisherman, which indicates he might lean toward the conservative side. Smith has had a number of civil and criminal legal entanglements in recent years, and to a progressive audience, he might not seem like a sympathetic figure.
But public documents indicate Smith was wrongly convicted in a federal prosecution brought by the Bush Justice Department, in a case overseen by a judge who was a George W. Bush appointee. For good measure, the judge has ties to federal appellate judge and former Alabama attorney general William Pryor.
Even the journalist who is credited with launching the Siegelman investigation has played a central role in the Eddie Smith story.
Does this all sound familiar? If you follow Legal Schnauzer, it should?
My own experience shows that you don't have to be a governor, a high-profile attorney, a famed forensic pathologist, or a "pro-consumer" judge to be targeted in the Age of Rove. And you don't have to be a Democrat. Just ask the nine Republican U.S. attorneys who were fired by the Bushies.
But why would the Bush crowd go after Eddie Smith?
That's a question we will examine closely in the days and weeks ahead.
(To be continued)
The prisoner is Edmond H. "Eddie" Smith IV, a well-known outdoorsman in south Alabama. Smith is a colorful, larger-than-life character who has received extensive coverage in the Mobile Press-Register over the past two years.
But the Mobile newspaper has largely neglected to report on key aspects of the Smith case, ones that indicate he almost certainly did not try to arrange a hit on anyone--and he should not be in prison at all.
We've been following the Smith case here at Legal Schnauzer since early June. And the more we learn about it, the more it smells like a non-political version of the Don Siegelman story.
What really is going on with the Eddie Smith case? Why has he been held in the Mobile County Jail for more than seven months, awaiting sentencing on a federal ammunition crime that court records indicate he did not commit?
We will be examining those questions in a series of upcoming posts.
For now, we know that Smith is accused of trying to arrange hits on U.S. District Judge William Steele and Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Bordenkircher. If convicted of solicitation of murder, Smith could be sentenced to as many as 20 years in prison. Smith pled not guilty to the charges on August 7.
The federal indictment alleges that Smith tried to hire a fellow inmate named Paul J. Albert and a person identified only as "E" to murder Steele and Bordenkircher. Albert has been convicted on counterfeiting charges, and his attorney indicates in a published report that he could receive a lighter sentence in exchange for his testimony against Smith.
The government's case appears to be built on the word of Paul J. Albert, who is virtually blind and deaf according to one source, and another person who does not even have a name at this point. Sounds like pretty shaky footing for a federal prosecution.
Sentencing on Smith's federal ammunition conviction--the reason he is in the Mobile County Jail in the first place--has been set for Thursday (August 27). Steele presided over that trial, and Bordenkircher was the prosecutor.
Eddie Smith might seem like an odd individual to compare to Don Siegelman. To our knowledge, Smith has no strong political affiliation. He is a hunter, gun enthusiast, and fisherman, which indicates he might lean toward the conservative side. Smith has had a number of civil and criminal legal entanglements in recent years, and to a progressive audience, he might not seem like a sympathetic figure.
But public documents indicate Smith was wrongly convicted in a federal prosecution brought by the Bush Justice Department, in a case overseen by a judge who was a George W. Bush appointee. For good measure, the judge has ties to federal appellate judge and former Alabama attorney general William Pryor.
Even the journalist who is credited with launching the Siegelman investigation has played a central role in the Eddie Smith story.
Does this all sound familiar? If you follow Legal Schnauzer, it should?
My own experience shows that you don't have to be a governor, a high-profile attorney, a famed forensic pathologist, or a "pro-consumer" judge to be targeted in the Age of Rove. And you don't have to be a Democrat. Just ask the nine Republican U.S. attorneys who were fired by the Bushies.
But why would the Bush crowd go after Eddie Smith?
That's a question we will examine closely in the days and weeks ahead.
(To be continued)
How Ill Informed Are the Rowdy Town Hallers?
Do the folks who've created much sound and fury at town-hall meetings in recent weeks have a clue what they are talking about on health-care reform?Apparently not.
Consider the fellow who popped off at a town-hall meeting hosted by U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD). The questioner was opposed to health-care reform because of a possible public option. With all of the fraud we have now in Medicare, he said, how much fraud would we have with a larger public program?
The questioner seemed to be a supporter of private insurance. But it apparently never occurred to him that a large portion of Medicare fraud is committed by private businesses, including insurance companies.
First of all, the Obama administration has started a major crackdown on Medicare fraud as part of its plans to reform health care. And much of that fraud is driven by the private sector. Consider this report from the Miami Herald:
Now consider the record of private insurers when it comes to Medicare fraud. Two employees at a Blue Cross/Blue Shield subsidiary in South Carolina recently received prison sentences for their roles in a fraud scheme.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) has a long history of fighting health-care reform--and its affiliates have a long history of health-care fraud.
Consider this 1999 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report titled "Improprieties by Contractors Compromised Medicare Program Integrity." And who are those Medicare contractors? BCBSA affiliates, including Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, are among them.
What did the report find? Here is part of the summary:
What kind of shenanigans were the "Blues" up to? The report gives examples:
What kind of culture has existed at the "Blues"? Again, from the summary:
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama apparently has joined in the questionable activities. A former auditor named Frank E. Body alleged that the company had reimbursed Alabama hospitals for interest costs that were not authorized by Medicare regulations. The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Body's whistleblower complaint must be dismissed on complex immunity grounds. But his complaint provides insight into the culture of Alabama's powerful "Blue."
Here is the gist of Body's allegations:
By the way, our research indicates that the 11th Circuit's interpretation of immunity issues in the Body case has not been adopted by any other circuit. And the opinion was authored by Gerald Bard Tjoflat, a Republican appointee who was on the three-judge panel that butchered the Don Siegelman appeal. In other words, it appears BSBSA drew favorable judges and got off easy in the Body case.
The GAO report and the Body complaint date back 10 to 20 years. But the recent case in South Carolina indicate that the "Blues" still have significant problems with fraud.
Here's something the town hallers don't care to recognize: History tells us that private insurers are not necessarily part of the solution; they are part of the problem. And if you really want to solve Medicare fraud, you had better not rely on private insurers to do it. In many cases, they are the ones committing the fraud.
Consider the fellow who popped off at a town-hall meeting hosted by U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD). The questioner was opposed to health-care reform because of a possible public option. With all of the fraud we have now in Medicare, he said, how much fraud would we have with a larger public program?
The questioner seemed to be a supporter of private insurance. But it apparently never occurred to him that a large portion of Medicare fraud is committed by private businesses, including insurance companies.
First of all, the Obama administration has started a major crackdown on Medicare fraud as part of its plans to reform health care. And much of that fraud is driven by the private sector. Consider this report from the Miami Herald:
On Friday, FBI agents arrested eight Miami-Dade residents on charges of bilking Medicare for $22 million by charging for nurses to treat mostly homebound diabetic patients--many of whom didn't have the disease or didn't receive the services.
FBI and HHS agents raided the suspects' two Miami-Dade businesses, ABC Home Health Care and Florida Home Health Care Providers, while prosecutors froze their bank accounts.
The prosecutions follow Medicare's suspension of billing privileges for 10 Miami-Dade home healthcare agencies that charged more than $100 million for suspicious services to treat homebound diabetic patients -- including false claims for nurses injecting their insulin shots twice a day.
Now consider the record of private insurers when it comes to Medicare fraud. Two employees at a Blue Cross/Blue Shield subsidiary in South Carolina recently received prison sentences for their roles in a fraud scheme.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) has a long history of fighting health-care reform--and its affiliates have a long history of health-care fraud.
Consider this 1999 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report titled "Improprieties by Contractors Compromised Medicare Program Integrity." And who are those Medicare contractors? BCBSA affiliates, including Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, are among them.
What did the report find? Here is part of the summary:
Since 1993, criminal and/or civil actions have been taken against at least six Medicare contractors resulting from their performance under Medicare contracts. The alleged contractor activities addressed in those actions occurred during the calendar years 1984 through 1997. With respect to three of the six contractors--BCBS of Illinois, Blue Shield of California, and Pennsylvania Blue Shield--the contractors and/or some of their employees pled guilty to various criminal charges and agreed to pay criminal fines and/or civil penalties. Investigations of the three other contractors--BCBS of Massachusetts, BCBS of Michigan, and BCBS of Florida--resulted in civil settlements only. A total of over $261 million was assessed in criminal and civil penalties against these six contractors.
What kind of shenanigans were the "Blues" up to? The report gives examples:
1. improperly screened, processed, and paid claims, resulting in additional costs to the Medicare program;
2. improperly destroyed or deleted claims;
3. failed to recoup overpayments to Medicare providers within the prescribed time and to collect required interest payments;
4. falsified documentation and reports to HCFA (now Medicare and Medicaid Services) regarding their performance; and
5. altered or hid files that involved claims that had been incorrectly processed or paid.
What kind of culture has existed at the "Blues"? Again, from the summary:
The persons to whom we spoke also told us that these deceptions and improprieties became a way of doing business and continued for sustained periods without detection because HCFA, in its review of Medicare contractors, relied on information provided by contractors without independent verification. HCFA also gave contractors advance notice of the files that it intended to review, thereby allowing contractors ample time to "correct," delete, or hide claim-related documents or redo provider audits and related workpapers prior to HCFA's review. This system also resulted in contractors deviating from their normal operating procedures during HCFA evaluations in order to deceive HCFA about their accuracy and efficiency in claims processing and customer service. As a result, criminal and other improper activities were uncovered only after whistleblowers, or relators, filed qui tam complaints under the False Claims Act.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama apparently has joined in the questionable activities. A former auditor named Frank E. Body alleged that the company had reimbursed Alabama hospitals for interest costs that were not authorized by Medicare regulations. The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Body's whistleblower complaint must be dismissed on complex immunity grounds. But his complaint provides insight into the culture of Alabama's powerful "Blue."
Here is the gist of Body's allegations:
In August 1993, prior to the issuance of the OIG's final report, Body instituted this lawsuit for the United States as a qui tam relator under the False Claims Act. Body alleges that BCBSA has been reimbursing Alabama hospitals, in particular Baptist and Carrawatm for interest costs that are not chargeable to Medicare.
By the way, our research indicates that the 11th Circuit's interpretation of immunity issues in the Body case has not been adopted by any other circuit. And the opinion was authored by Gerald Bard Tjoflat, a Republican appointee who was on the three-judge panel that butchered the Don Siegelman appeal. In other words, it appears BSBSA drew favorable judges and got off easy in the Body case.
The GAO report and the Body complaint date back 10 to 20 years. But the recent case in South Carolina indicate that the "Blues" still have significant problems with fraud.
Here's something the town hallers don't care to recognize: History tells us that private insurers are not necessarily part of the solution; they are part of the problem. And if you really want to solve Medicare fraud, you had better not rely on private insurers to do it. In many cases, they are the ones committing the fraud.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Jill Simpson Fires Back at Rove and The Wall Street Journal
Former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove threw a number of low blows in his op-ed piece yesterday in the Wall Street Journal.
Several of them were aimed at Alabama attorney and Don Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson. Rove calls Simpson an "eccentric Alabama lawyer," says Congressional staff members consider her "an unreliable witness," and says Simpson refused to cooperate with a Department of Justice inquiry into the Siegelman allegations.
Simpson showed a long time ago that she is willing to go toe-to-toe with Rove. And she fires back, in serious fashion, at both "Bush's Brain" and the WSJ. In a letter to Publisher Rupert Murdoch and the editors of The Wall Street Journal, Simpson writes:
And that's just a nugget from Simpson. Here is her complete letter:
Several of them were aimed at Alabama attorney and Don Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson. Rove calls Simpson an "eccentric Alabama lawyer," says Congressional staff members consider her "an unreliable witness," and says Simpson refused to cooperate with a Department of Justice inquiry into the Siegelman allegations.
Simpson showed a long time ago that she is willing to go toe-to-toe with Rove. And she fires back, in serious fashion, at both "Bush's Brain" and the WSJ. In a letter to Publisher Rupert Murdoch and the editors of The Wall Street Journal, Simpson writes:
It is clearly evident that Karl Rove completely distorted the truth in his article, and you printed it. I just want to thank you for showing that he is so delusional that he cannot even control himself from printing lies in the press. Clearly today, your paper has shown that he is a nut job, and although he may have called me a lunatic and eccentric at times, we now have hard evidence that he is a bold-faced liar. His lies can clearly be confirmed as lies.
And that's just a nugget from Simpson. Here is her complete letter:
Dear Mr. Murdoch and all the editors at the Wall Street Journal
My Response to the article "Closing in on Rove"
I want to thank you from the very bottom of my heart for running Karl Rove's delusional article, "Closing in on Rove," on August 20, 2009. The reason I want to thank you is that Mr. Rove has clearly lied about me in this article. You have captured and printed it without even checking to see if it is so or not. The lie he has told is and I quote, "Judiciary Democrats didn't get testimony from either Mr. Siegelman or Dana Jill Simpson, the eccentric Alabama lawyer, who drew attention by publicly supporting the allegations." In case you are unaware, I testified on September 14, 2007, before the House Judiciary Committee lawyers that were selected to question me. I most definitely gave sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Democrats. In fact, I gave over one hundred and forty three pages of testimony before the Judiciary Democratic and Republican lawyers. It is unfortunate that your paper does not give a rip about the truth or you would have checked out the bold-faced lie that Karl Rove put in his article before you printed it.
Further, I find it extremely tacky that you allow him to call me an eccentric Alabama lawyer. I ask, did you check with anyone other than Karl Rove, who clearly hates me for telling on him? Karl also states in his article, "I also understand that Mr. Siegelman and Ms. Simpson refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s review of his claim of political persecution, while I willingly gave sworn testimony." It was announced on May 15, 2009, that Mr. Rove was subpoenaed to testify by Nora Dannehy of the DOJ about the firing of the nine U.S. attorneys in a criminal matter. I would hardly call that willingly giving sworn testimony. Further, he pointedly refused to agree to give sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee this summer and did not take a sworn oath before chatting with the House Judiciary lawyers that questioned him. I might add that I gladly and freely gave sworn testimony. Mr. Rove, however, has willfully misled the public in this article into thinking that I have refused to give sworn testimony to the DOJ in the case in which he was subpoenaed to testify. I have never been subpoenaed or contacted by Nora Dannehy to testify in the investigation she is conducting on Karl Rove. I believe the reason for this is the fact that she is appointed the special prosecutor solely for the nine fired United States attorneys. Anyone who has read the transcript of my testimony before the House Judiciary lawyers, my affidavit, and watched the 60 Minutes piece would know I have never made a direct claim of having any personal knowledge about the fired United States attorneys. What I believe Mr. Rove is trying to do here is to confuse the public.
I would additionally like to state that I have had very limited contact with the Department of Justice since testifying before the House Judiciary lawyers. One contact is from Lisa Howard. She contacted my attorney in the fall of 2008 and contended that she was working at the DOJ for the Office of Professional Responsibility and asked about me possibly testifying and asked for my address. My attorney communicated to her that I had already told my story in an affidavit and given four hours of testimony under oath before the House Judiciary Committee and that both of these documents were readily available and represented all I knew about the prosecution of Don Siegelman. Ms. Howard did not ask for a copy of these documents nor has she every subpoenaed me or asked to interview me, and been refused, to the best of my knowledge.
In December of 2008, I was contacted by an individual I knew and her attorney about the OPR conducting an investigation on me and asking questions about my sex life and the adoption of my four-year-old daughter. I contacted the man they identified as working for the DOJ's OPR, Jim Sullivan, who happens to work for Alice Martin. I asked him if I was the target of an investigation since he had conversations with the woman who contacted me about whether I had bought a baby for $300,000 after his asking her about it. He would not confirm or deny if I was a target to investigation on the ridiculous claim that I had bought a baby for $300,000, which was untrue, but he admitted asking the questions the woman said he had asked her. Within a week or two, the woman contacted me again and said that a Mr. Causey, A Washington OPR attorney, had contacted her. I had my attorney write the DOJ's OPR office and Ms. Howard about this matter to ask if this was the way they conduct investigations at the OPR. Further, it seemed quite odd at the time considering I do not work for the DOJ, and I could not fathom the connection of my sex life and adoption of my four-year-old daughter having anything to do with the investigation of Leura Canary and Alice Martin. An OPR attorney, Judith Wish, contacted my attorney and asked her to provide the name of the individuals that their employees had contacted. They did ask me what their investigators learned and whom they had spoken with. We communicated back that they should ask them because Mr. Sullivan had already admitted to me that he had done it and could not tell me why. I had no desire to put into writing their ridiculous claims. Those are the only two contacts I have had with the DOJ. Neither involved me refusing to testify from being subpoenaed or interviewed on whether Mr. Siegelman had been persecuted or not, as Karl Rove so claimed in the news article. I did, however, refuse to give them the names of the people they had contacted but gave them their employee’s names as they knew very well who they had contacted.
It has long been my belief that Karl Rove put the OPR up to asking these questions, and I am still to this date waiting for an apology from the OPR and have never heard anything else from the DOJ since they got caught snooping around in my personal life. It is completely ridiculous for Rove to claim I refused to cooperate with them when I am still waiting for them to let me know why they were snooping in my personal life (for information) that had nothing to do with their investigations of Leura Canary and Alice Martin. Plus, the allegations were ridiculous, as I had not "bought" my daughter. I would have thought they could have gotten to the bottom of this very quickly. Never during any of that awful deal with DOJ did they ask me to testify and give a sworn statement. Further, how my sex life was involved in their investigation is beyond me, but they had questions about it. I suspect this was done in an attempt to embarrass me. I suspect Karl Rove was behind those attempts to discredit me and again the stuff was just so ridiculous. Apparently that matter is lost as well at the DOJ, as we never heard back from Ms. Judith Wish after she contacted Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Causey.
After reading Mr. Rove's article today, it is unclear, but I believe he may be claiming he made a sworn statement to OPR. I shall be writing to see if this is about my sex life and adoption. I would love to know if he is the one behind those ridiculous tales.
Mr. Rove also stated in the article that committee staff considered me an unreliable witness, but he fails to identify any of those unnamed individuals. What I find most interesting is he fails to mention the report that found my evidence was credible enough to call him as a witness. He is truly a sad, pathetic individual trying to cover his behind from criminal prosecution.
It is clearly evident that Karl Rove completely distorted the truth in his article, and you printed it. I just want to thank you for showing that he is so delusional that he cannot even control himself from printing lies in the press. Clearly today, your paper has shown that he is a nut job, and although he may have called me a lunatic and eccentric at times, we now have hard evidence that he is a bold-faced liar. His lies can clearly be confirmed as lies.
Thank you, Mr. Murdoch, for printing his lies. Hopefully the American public will wake up and realize that Karl Rove is a liar. For too long he has been allowed to politically bully people and lie in the press. Today I socked him in the nose with the truth. As for his lies, please let him know lies do not hurt anyone except the person who tells them.
I am happy today to call Mr. Rove a liar, and you have provided the cold hard proof. You, Mr. Murdoch, gave me that opportunity. I am thankful that you run a paper that apparently does not check for the truth.
Sincerely,
DANA JILL SIMPSON
Karl Rove Launches a Slimy Spin Campaign
Karl Rove never has been one to let the law stand in the way of his political ambitions. Now we discover that Rove won't let the facts stand in the way of his political spin.
The Wall Street Journal and The Birmingham News on Thursday both ran op-ed pieces that essentially said Rove had proven himself clean in the U.S. attorney firings and the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
The WSJ piece was written by Rove, and The Birmingham News piece might as well have been. It raises pretty much the same points, and repeats the same lies, as the Rove-written piece.
Is it coincidence that two of the most right-wing editorial pages in the country ran pro-Rove op-ed pieces on the same day? I doubt it. It appears to be part of an orchestrated spin campaign--one that clearly is detached from reality.
Rove's WSJ piece borders on the delusional. Rove says his Congressional testimony showed he had little to do with the U.S. attorney firings; in fact, it showed he was right in the middle of them. Rove says he willingly gave sworn testimony; in fact, he had to be forced into giving testimony that was not under oath and was not in public; Rove says Alabama attorney and Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson did not testify before the House Judiciary Committee; in fact, she did just that in fall 2007.
Does anyone edit the slop that goes on the WSJ's editorial page?
David Fiderer provides an excellent summation of Rove's scribblings at Huffington Post:
Fiderer then expertly exposes Rove's lies in the WSJ piece:
Larisa Alexandrovna reports at Raw Story that Rove's piece indicates he might have improperly received inside information from the Department of Justice:
U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, says the Rove op-ed raises serious questions about the ethics of The Wall Street Journal:
As for The Birmingham News, there never has been much doubt about its status as a right-wing mouthpiece. And that is only confirmed with its most recent editorial about Rove and the Siegelman prosecution.
The paper states, in essence, that Rove raised his right hand and testified under oath, so Siegelman should do the same thing. Never mind that Rove did not testify under oath, and Siegelman never has been called by Congress to testify at all. Just consider the News' statement that Siegelman should testify about something . . . anything:
Thursday's writings reveal Rove and his Birmingham compatriots to be borderline unbalanced. Is this how people express themselves when they are feeling significant heat?
If so, perhaps these op-ed pieces are a good sign.
The Wall Street Journal and The Birmingham News on Thursday both ran op-ed pieces that essentially said Rove had proven himself clean in the U.S. attorney firings and the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
The WSJ piece was written by Rove, and The Birmingham News piece might as well have been. It raises pretty much the same points, and repeats the same lies, as the Rove-written piece.
Is it coincidence that two of the most right-wing editorial pages in the country ran pro-Rove op-ed pieces on the same day? I doubt it. It appears to be part of an orchestrated spin campaign--one that clearly is detached from reality.
Rove's WSJ piece borders on the delusional. Rove says his Congressional testimony showed he had little to do with the U.S. attorney firings; in fact, it showed he was right in the middle of them. Rove says he willingly gave sworn testimony; in fact, he had to be forced into giving testimony that was not under oath and was not in public; Rove says Alabama attorney and Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson did not testify before the House Judiciary Committee; in fact, she did just that in fall 2007.
Does anyone edit the slop that goes on the WSJ's editorial page?
David Fiderer provides an excellent summation of Rove's scribblings at Huffington Post:
Karl Rove can't help himself. The more he talks the more he suggests that he's guilty as sin. His throw-crap-against-the-wall-and-hope-it-sticks piece in The Wall Street Journal constitutes his latest non-denial about corrupt dealings with the Justice Department.
Fiderer then expertly exposes Rove's lies in the WSJ piece:
Rove's lies could not be more blatant. Simpson gave sworn testimony for the House Judiciary Committee, with questioning by Democratic staffers, on September 14, 2007. Gov. Siegelman was never called to testify by any agency or committee. Rove never testified for a Justice Department review of the Siegelman case. In fact, there's no indication that the Justice Department has considered the prima facie evidence of lying, concealment of evidence and witness intimidation by federal prosecutors.
Larisa Alexandrovna reports at Raw Story that Rove's piece indicates he might have improperly received inside information from the Department of Justice:
Rove’s remarkable admission that he “understand[s] that Mr. Siegelman and Ms. Simpson refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s review of his claim of political persecution, while I willingly gave sworn testimony,” opens both Rove himself and and the OPR to questions of serious impropriety.
Pricilla Duncan, Simpson’s former attorney, said during a Thursday morning phone interview that she was concerned and wanted to know “how Rove could possibly know who the [Department of Justice] was interviewing and which witnesses were cooperating or not?”
U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, says the Rove op-ed raises serious questions about the ethics of The Wall Street Journal:
When Rupert Murdoch acquired the Journal, substantial concerns were raised about the number of media properties he owned and the right wing bias of his news ventures. Many questioned whether the Wall Street Journal would become just another New York Post or, worse, Fox News.
While the Journal’s editorial page had been conservative for some time, the news division had been largely balanced and thorough. (Indeed, the reporter’s online piece is balanced and thorough.) Many wondered whether Murdoch would put his right wing slant on the news pages as well.
The Journal’s handling of this chapter of the USA scandal seems to bring that question to a head—is it a sign that the editorial staff of the Journal’s news division—or at least its editing—has taken on Murdoch’s right-wing bias?
As for The Birmingham News, there never has been much doubt about its status as a right-wing mouthpiece. And that is only confirmed with its most recent editorial about Rove and the Siegelman prosecution.
The paper states, in essence, that Rove raised his right hand and testified under oath, so Siegelman should do the same thing. Never mind that Rove did not testify under oath, and Siegelman never has been called by Congress to testify at all. Just consider the News' statement that Siegelman should testify about something . . . anything:
We're not talking about requiring him to testify about the criminal charges against him; that would be unconstitutional, and wrong. We're talking about him giving sworn testimony about the political conspiracy he alleges is behind his conviction.How nonsensical is this? Siegelman alleges that he was the VICTIM of a political conspiracy. The whole point of a conspiracy is to keep the victim in the dark about what is happening. So what is Siegelman supposed to know and say about actions that were hidden from him?
Thursday's writings reveal Rove and his Birmingham compatriots to be borderline unbalanced. Is this how people express themselves when they are feeling significant heat?
If so, perhaps these op-ed pieces are a good sign.
Bits and Pieces From the Alabama Legal Front
Feds Are Going After Sue Schmitz' Property
Federal prosecutors are trying to seize former Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz' home in Toney, Alabama, and a house she owns in Florida to repay a court-ordered forfeiture following her conviction on fraud charges earlier this year.
This news comes after reports that William Athanas, lead prosecutor in the Schmitz case, has resigned from his position with the U.S. attorney's office in the Northern District of Alabama.
Are these stories connected? The motion to seize Schmitz' property was filed on August 4. Roughly two weeks later, Athanas was out the door. Curious.
Is new U.S. attorney Joyce White Vance, who inherited a mess from Alice Martin, trying to put the brakes on a Schmitz prosecution that she probably knows was bogus? Are Martin loyalists unhappy about it, using The Birmingham News to fire back at Vance?
If Vance tries to clean up the sleaze pit in Alice Martin's former domain, look for Martin's favorite news outlet, The Birmingham News, to come after Vance with critical coverage.
Bradley Arant Was Victim of Scam
We recently reported that a Birmingham law firm was the victim of an online scam. Now we know the identity of the firm. It was Bradley Arant Boult & Cummings, one of the city's more hallowed legal outfits.
The Nashville Tennessean reports that Bradley Arant got suckered for $400,000, but recovered the funds with the help of the FBI.
Interestingly, Bradley Arant fell for a debt-collection scheme, but the firm's Web site does not list debt collection as one of its practice areas. Did the firm just get greedy--and stupid?
If so, we shouldn't be surprised. And the sucker punch couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch. Bradley Arant emits a familiar Republican stench. The firm includes Robert J. Campbell, son-in-law of Governor Bob Riley and husband of Minda Riley Campbell. Matthew Lembke, another close ally of Bob and Rob Riley, is at Bradley Arant. You might recall that Lembke joined Rob Riley in filing flimsy affidavits in an effort to counter the revelations of Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson.
Bradley Arant has raked in serious bundles of cash under the Riley administration--much more on that coming in a future post--so to see them cough up some of it is rather amusing.
Scrushy's Assets Prove Elusive
Lawyers for HealthSouth shareholders are having trouble getting their hands on Richard Scrushy's assets in an effort to satisfy a $2.8 billion judgment against the former CEO.
Reports The Birmingham News:
Isn't that too bad? I've got to hand it to Scrushy. I have no idea what role, if any, he played in the accounting fraud at HealthSouth. But I think he knows the justice system in Alabama is crooked, and he is not happily playing along.
I do know two things for sure:
* Allwin Horn, the judge who handed down the $2.8 billion judgment, is demonstrably corrupt. I've seen it firsthand. I wouldn't trust Allwin Horn to run a corner lemonade stand, and he certainly shouldn't be entrusted with a legal matter of any substance.
* Attorney Rob Riley, son of Governor Bob Riley, is in the middle of the various HealthSouth lawsuits on the plaintiffs' side. And documents in federal court indicate that Riley, while fighting health-care fraud on one hand, is owner of a company that commits health-care fraud on the other.
If Scrushy can successfully thumb his nose at the Allwin Horns and Rob Rileys of the world, I say good for him.
Scrushy Is Determined to Clear His Name
Speaking of Richard Scrushy, he says in a letter to Fox Business that he is determined to clear his name in the Don Siegelman case.
The Birmingham News reports:
You can read the full letter here.
Did the 11th Circuit Cheat Alex Latifi?
The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 three-judge panel ruling, has reversed a Birmingham federal judge's order granting Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi $360,956 in attorney fees after he beat criminal arms-export charges.
The appeals court said the award was outside the scope of the law that Congress designed to provide relief in civil asset-seizure cases. It said the law did not allow for fee-shifting from the costs of a criminal defense to a civil-forfeiture defense.
The three-judge panel obviously was split on the matter, and a lawyer for Latifi says the issue probably is not settled. Reports the Huntsville Times:
Did the 11th Circuit cheat Latifi? That's a tough question to answer because the opinion is long and complex. You can read it here.
As we have shown in our coverage of the Don Siegelman case, the 11th Circuit is not above cheating certain parties. And two members of the Siegelman panel--James C. Hill and J.L. Edmondson--also were on the Latifi panel. That is suspicious.
But it should be noted, that Hill cast the dissenting vote in the Latifi matter. And this ruling was on a technical matter regarding attorney fees and civil-forfeiture cases. It does not mean that Latifi will not eventually receive a sizable chunk of attorney fees related to the criminal matter. From the opinion:
For now, it looks like Alex Latifi still could come out OK on this issue. We will be watching.
Federal prosecutors are trying to seize former Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz' home in Toney, Alabama, and a house she owns in Florida to repay a court-ordered forfeiture following her conviction on fraud charges earlier this year.
This news comes after reports that William Athanas, lead prosecutor in the Schmitz case, has resigned from his position with the U.S. attorney's office in the Northern District of Alabama.
Are these stories connected? The motion to seize Schmitz' property was filed on August 4. Roughly two weeks later, Athanas was out the door. Curious.
Is new U.S. attorney Joyce White Vance, who inherited a mess from Alice Martin, trying to put the brakes on a Schmitz prosecution that she probably knows was bogus? Are Martin loyalists unhappy about it, using The Birmingham News to fire back at Vance?
If Vance tries to clean up the sleaze pit in Alice Martin's former domain, look for Martin's favorite news outlet, The Birmingham News, to come after Vance with critical coverage.
Bradley Arant Was Victim of Scam
We recently reported that a Birmingham law firm was the victim of an online scam. Now we know the identity of the firm. It was Bradley Arant Boult & Cummings, one of the city's more hallowed legal outfits.
The Nashville Tennessean reports that Bradley Arant got suckered for $400,000, but recovered the funds with the help of the FBI.
Interestingly, Bradley Arant fell for a debt-collection scheme, but the firm's Web site does not list debt collection as one of its practice areas. Did the firm just get greedy--and stupid?
If so, we shouldn't be surprised. And the sucker punch couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch. Bradley Arant emits a familiar Republican stench. The firm includes Robert J. Campbell, son-in-law of Governor Bob Riley and husband of Minda Riley Campbell. Matthew Lembke, another close ally of Bob and Rob Riley, is at Bradley Arant. You might recall that Lembke joined Rob Riley in filing flimsy affidavits in an effort to counter the revelations of Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson.
Bradley Arant has raked in serious bundles of cash under the Riley administration--much more on that coming in a future post--so to see them cough up some of it is rather amusing.
Scrushy's Assets Prove Elusive
Lawyers for HealthSouth shareholders are having trouble getting their hands on Richard Scrushy's assets in an effort to satisfy a $2.8 billion judgment against the former CEO.
Reports The Birmingham News:
Homes in Vestavia Hills and Lake Martin have been "stripped bare" of furniture, antiques, silverware and other valuables, according to a document filed today. The homes were seized earlier, along with 20 vehicles and various personal items.
Isn't that too bad? I've got to hand it to Scrushy. I have no idea what role, if any, he played in the accounting fraud at HealthSouth. But I think he knows the justice system in Alabama is crooked, and he is not happily playing along.
I do know two things for sure:
* Allwin Horn, the judge who handed down the $2.8 billion judgment, is demonstrably corrupt. I've seen it firsthand. I wouldn't trust Allwin Horn to run a corner lemonade stand, and he certainly shouldn't be entrusted with a legal matter of any substance.
* Attorney Rob Riley, son of Governor Bob Riley, is in the middle of the various HealthSouth lawsuits on the plaintiffs' side. And documents in federal court indicate that Riley, while fighting health-care fraud on one hand, is owner of a company that commits health-care fraud on the other.
If Scrushy can successfully thumb his nose at the Allwin Horns and Rob Rileys of the world, I say good for him.
Scrushy Is Determined to Clear His Name
Speaking of Richard Scrushy, he says in a letter to Fox Business that he is determined to clear his name in the Don Siegelman case.
The Birmingham News reports:
"First, I am innocent of the charges," Scrushy writes. "I did not commit the crimes. Based on the information we now have, the prosecutors knew there was no crime; so, they created what they called a crime. They coached and programmed a witness to say what they needed him to say to get the conviction."
You can read the full letter here.
Did the 11th Circuit Cheat Alex Latifi?
The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 three-judge panel ruling, has reversed a Birmingham federal judge's order granting Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi $360,956 in attorney fees after he beat criminal arms-export charges.
The appeals court said the award was outside the scope of the law that Congress designed to provide relief in civil asset-seizure cases. It said the law did not allow for fee-shifting from the costs of a criminal defense to a civil-forfeiture defense.
The three-judge panel obviously was split on the matter, and a lawyer for Latifi says the issue probably is not settled. Reports the Huntsville Times:
Jim Barger, one of Latifi's attorneys, said they will review the decision, but he expects they will ask the full 11th Circuit Court to hear argument.
"This is a case of first impression," Barger said. "No other court in the country has considered this. It will affect every parallel criminal and civil action from here on out."
Did the 11th Circuit cheat Latifi? That's a tough question to answer because the opinion is long and complex. You can read it here.
As we have shown in our coverage of the Don Siegelman case, the 11th Circuit is not above cheating certain parties. And two members of the Siegelman panel--James C. Hill and J.L. Edmondson--also were on the Latifi panel. That is suspicious.
But it should be noted, that Hill cast the dissenting vote in the Latifi matter. And this ruling was on a technical matter regarding attorney fees and civil-forfeiture cases. It does not mean that Latifi will not eventually receive a sizable chunk of attorney fees related to the criminal matter. From the opinion:
We note that Axion and Latifi’s motion for attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Hyde Amendment filed in the related criminal case on December 12, 2007, remains pending. The district court stayed all further proceedings in the criminal case until this court issued the instant decision. Upon remand of this case, the district court may want to consider Axion and Latifi’s motion for attorney fees and costs in the related criminal proceeding.
For now, it looks like Alex Latifi still could come out OK on this issue. We will be watching.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Something Is Shaking in Birmingham U.S. Attorney's Office
Is a much-needed housecleaning under way in Alabama's soiled federal justice system? It looks like that might be the case.
News is breaking today that one prominent prosecutor in the Northern District of Alabama has resigned and another has been transferred out of the public-corruption unit.
Is Joyce White Vance, the new U.S. attorney for the Northern District, taking steps to clean up some of the prosecutorial sleaze she inherited from Alice Martin? Could a bigger story be brewing in Vance's office, with more changes to come?
We are hearing the answer to both questions is yes.
William Athanas, a key member of the prosecution team for the upcoming trial of Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, has resigned. Matt Hart asked to be transferred out of the public-corruption unit.
Athanas perhaps is best known for his lead role in the prosecution of former Alabama representative Sue Schmitz. The government somehow got a conviction in the Schmitz case, but as we reported here at Legal Schnauzer, the charges against Schmitz were flimsy at best.
Was Athanas' resignation connected to possible misconduct in the Schmitz prosecution? Could it signal that Schmitz might receive a new trial--or have her conviction overturned? The answers to those questions remain unclear.
As for Matt Hart, he also was playing a lead role in the Langford case. And he was perhaps best known for his part in the investigation of Alabama Attorney General Troy King.
I had a brief encounter with Mr. Hart a few years ago, and I came away unimpressed. I called him in an effort to let him know about criminal conduct I had witnessed from Republican judges and lawyers in Shelby County, Alabama. Hart made it clear that investigating Republicans was not a high priority in the Alice Martin era. Here's how I described the experience with Hart, as part of my effort to alert the FBI and other law-enforcement officials of GOP sleaze in Shelby County:
Hart sounded real interested in GOP public corruption, didn't he?
We haven't heard what might become of another controversial prosecutor, the esteemed David Estes. He is best known for his role in the Alex Latifi case in Huntsville, where he allegedly told defense attorneys, "We don't care if Latifi is innocent. Our goal is to put him out of business."
We had a mixed reaction to Joyce White Vance's appointment as U.S. attorney, mainly because her husband is Alabama Circuit Judge Robert Vance Jr. I've had a matter before Judge Vance and seen him intentionally rule unlawfully in order to benefit his buddies in the Alabama legal community. With those kind of personal ties to Birmingham's establishment, I have doubts if Joyce Vance is the kind of aggressive and principled U.S. attorney we need.
I doubt that I will ever be a fan of Robert Vance Jr. In fact, I have more critical coverage of him coming soon. But maybe I was wrong about his wife. Today's news is a rare encouraging sign in the Alabama justice system. Let's hope Joyce White Vance has more encouraging news to come.
News is breaking today that one prominent prosecutor in the Northern District of Alabama has resigned and another has been transferred out of the public-corruption unit.
Is Joyce White Vance, the new U.S. attorney for the Northern District, taking steps to clean up some of the prosecutorial sleaze she inherited from Alice Martin? Could a bigger story be brewing in Vance's office, with more changes to come?
We are hearing the answer to both questions is yes.
William Athanas, a key member of the prosecution team for the upcoming trial of Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, has resigned. Matt Hart asked to be transferred out of the public-corruption unit.
Athanas perhaps is best known for his lead role in the prosecution of former Alabama representative Sue Schmitz. The government somehow got a conviction in the Schmitz case, but as we reported here at Legal Schnauzer, the charges against Schmitz were flimsy at best.
Was Athanas' resignation connected to possible misconduct in the Schmitz prosecution? Could it signal that Schmitz might receive a new trial--or have her conviction overturned? The answers to those questions remain unclear.
As for Matt Hart, he also was playing a lead role in the Langford case. And he was perhaps best known for his part in the investigation of Alabama Attorney General Troy King.
I had a brief encounter with Mr. Hart a few years ago, and I came away unimpressed. I called him in an effort to let him know about criminal conduct I had witnessed from Republican judges and lawyers in Shelby County, Alabama. Hart made it clear that investigating Republicans was not a high priority in the Alice Martin era. Here's how I described the experience with Hart, as part of my effort to alert the FBI and other law-enforcement officials of GOP sleaze in Shelby County:
Somehow, I came up with an e-mail address for Matt Hart, director of the white-collar crime unit. I sent him an e-mail and never received a reply. I decided to take a shot at calling his office, and by some miracle, managed to get him on the phone. First, Hart told me I didn't have a clue about the applicable law--honest services mail fraud. When I made it clear that I certainly did know about both the statutory and case law behind honest services mail fraud, Hart changed his tune. Whether I had been the victim of a crime or not, Hart was "kicking" my case. "I kick cases all the time," he said. I found it interesting that he could "kick" a case he hadn't even looked at yet.
Hart sounded real interested in GOP public corruption, didn't he?
We haven't heard what might become of another controversial prosecutor, the esteemed David Estes. He is best known for his role in the Alex Latifi case in Huntsville, where he allegedly told defense attorneys, "We don't care if Latifi is innocent. Our goal is to put him out of business."
We had a mixed reaction to Joyce White Vance's appointment as U.S. attorney, mainly because her husband is Alabama Circuit Judge Robert Vance Jr. I've had a matter before Judge Vance and seen him intentionally rule unlawfully in order to benefit his buddies in the Alabama legal community. With those kind of personal ties to Birmingham's establishment, I have doubts if Joyce Vance is the kind of aggressive and principled U.S. attorney we need.
I doubt that I will ever be a fan of Robert Vance Jr. In fact, I have more critical coverage of him coming soon. But maybe I was wrong about his wife. Today's news is a rare encouraging sign in the Alabama justice system. Let's hope Joyce White Vance has more encouraging news to come.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Is This Karl Rove's "Mystery McDonald"?
We posted recently about Karl Rove's mysterious reference to an Alabama lawyer named McDonald and wondered if it provided any clues regarding the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
A source said the reference probably was to Alabama businessman and University of Alabama Board of Trustees member Sidney L. McDonald. But a second source says the reference probably was to Mobile lawyer Matthew C. McDonald.
Several published sources have connected Matthew McDonald to Rove, so it appears Matthew is the "mystery McDonald," not Sid.
Source No. 2 says Matthew McDonald might be related to Sid McDonald, possibly a nephew. And like Sid, Matthew has solid ties to the University of Alabama. He earned his law degree there and served on the editorial board for the Alabama Law Review.
Matthew McDonald perhaps is best known for his role in the tort-reform movement. He is held in high regard by the Foundation for Fair Civil Justice, which deemed him a "legal reform champion" and stated:
That last paragraph says a lot about McDonald's connections to Rove. Those connections were made clear in a 2007 New York Times article:
Our earlier post was off base about Rove's testimony and its possible connections to the University of Alabama. This latest information perhaps says something important about Rove's mindset during his testimony.
Rove appears to have long-standing ties to Matthew McDonald, but "Bush's Brain" could not recall his Alabama colleague's first name, or whether he lived in Mobile or Birmingham? Does that say something about Rove's level of candor throughout his Congressional testimony?
And here is the important point: Rove himself has identified Bill Canary, Kelley McCullough Robertson, and Matthew McDonald as three key contacts in Alabama. If a real investigation ensues, will it include an examination of the phone and e-mail communications of those three folks--along with others in Alabama who probably stayed in touch with Rove?
Do Canary, Robertson, and McDonald have information that will unlock the truth behind the Don Siegelman case--and the abuse of our Department of Justice during the Bush administration?
A source said the reference probably was to Alabama businessman and University of Alabama Board of Trustees member Sidney L. McDonald. But a second source says the reference probably was to Mobile lawyer Matthew C. McDonald.
Several published sources have connected Matthew McDonald to Rove, so it appears Matthew is the "mystery McDonald," not Sid.
Source No. 2 says Matthew McDonald might be related to Sid McDonald, possibly a nephew. And like Sid, Matthew has solid ties to the University of Alabama. He earned his law degree there and served on the editorial board for the Alabama Law Review.
Matthew McDonald perhaps is best known for his role in the tort-reform movement. He is held in high regard by the Foundation for Fair Civil Justice, which deemed him a "legal reform champion" and stated:
(Matt) has been especially active in the southeastern United States, both as general counsel of the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee, and as the widely recognized principal proponent of lawsuit reform laws passed in 1987 and 1999 in a region notorious for massive damage awards.
Matt also worked closely on the successful Alabama Supreme Court races from 1994 through 2002 that saw the election of fair and balanced justices to that court.
That last paragraph says a lot about McDonald's connections to Rove. Those connections were made clear in a 2007 New York Times article:
An associate of Mr. Rove's in the state, Matthew C. McDonald, a Mobile lawyer, said Mr. Rove had maintained at least a passing interest in Alabama affairs. The interest dated back to his pivotal role as a political consultant here in the 1990s, when he helped shift the state's supreme court to the Republicans. Mr. Rove opened an office in Montgomery, and would fly in and out regularly.
Our earlier post was off base about Rove's testimony and its possible connections to the University of Alabama. This latest information perhaps says something important about Rove's mindset during his testimony.
Rove appears to have long-standing ties to Matthew McDonald, but "Bush's Brain" could not recall his Alabama colleague's first name, or whether he lived in Mobile or Birmingham? Does that say something about Rove's level of candor throughout his Congressional testimony?
And here is the important point: Rove himself has identified Bill Canary, Kelley McCullough Robertson, and Matthew McDonald as three key contacts in Alabama. If a real investigation ensues, will it include an examination of the phone and e-mail communications of those three folks--along with others in Alabama who probably stayed in touch with Rove?
Do Canary, Robertson, and McDonald have information that will unlock the truth behind the Don Siegelman case--and the abuse of our Department of Justice during the Bush administration?
Karl Rove and His Mysterious Alabama "Lawyer"
One of the most curious moments in Karl Rove's recent testimony about the Don Siegelman case came when the former Bush White House adviser was asked about his primary contacts in Alabama.
Rove mentioned two familiar names--William Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama, and Kelley McCullough Robertson, former Southeast political director for the Republican National Committee and state director for Karl Rove & Co.
Almost as an afterthought, Rove threw out a third name--a "lawyer" named McDonald. Strangely, Rove could not seem to remember the person's first name or hometown.
Which raises this question: Who in the heck is this McDonald person?
A source with strong knowledge of Alabama politics tells Legal Schnauzer that Rove probably was referring to Sidney L. McDonald, a prominent businessman from Town Grove, Alabama, and founder of DeltaCom Long Distance Services, the largest Alabama-owned telecommunications company.
McDonald has served in both the Alabama House of Representatives and the Alabama Senate and was one of the first members of the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE).
Perhaps of most interest here at Legal Schnauzer is this: McDonald has served on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees since 1992. That's the outfit that oversees the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). It's also the outfit that almost certainly either pushed for, or approved of, my unlawful termination in May 2008.
McDonald now is an emeritus member of the board. But he was president pro tempore when the board hired current UAB president Carol Garrison in 2002. Garrison, of course, was in charge at UAB when I was unlawfully terminated and also has seen a lengthy string of human-resources problems surface on her watch.
Interestingly, Garrison was hired in the aftermath of a major HR headache--the forced resignation of previous UAB president W. Ann Reynolds, who wound up suing the Board of Trustees for age and gender discrimination. McDonald said at the time that discrimination played no role in Reynolds' ouster. But Reynolds wound up receiving a nifty $475,000 settlement for her troubles.
One other note: McDonald also played a major role in the hiring of Malcolm Portera, the current chancellor of the University of Alabama System. Portera just happens to be a proud member of the Business Council of Alabama's board of directors, which is run by Karl Rove's close friend and ally, Bill Canary.
Our source notes that McDonald is not a lawyer, but he is close to the Alabama Republican Party and almost certainly is the person to whom Rove was referring.
If our source is correct, let's consider what that might mean for our Legal Schnauzer story:
* A trusted source for Karl Rove serves on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees;
* Said source hired a chancellor who now serves on Bill Canary's business-council board;
* Said source was president of the board when it hired Carol Garrison as UAB president;
* Your humble correspondent, a 19-year UAB employee at the time, happened to be writing a blog critical of the Bush Justice Department (on my own time), which we now know was hugely and corruptly influenced by Karl Rove;
* Carol Garrison, a virtual lapdog for Karl Rove's trusted Alabama source, OKed my unlawful termination.
So Karl Rove's Congressional testimony raises a number of questions that hit awfully close to home:
* Is the University of Alabama Board of Trustees essentially run by a bunch of Rove-influenced right wingers?
* Did Karl Rove's apparent ties to Sid McDonald have something to do with my unlawful termination?
* If Karl Rove is found to have corruptly influenced the Don Siegelman prosecution, did a member (or members) of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees play a role in it?
* Will Congressional investigators present followup questions to Rove in order to determine the exact identify of this "McDonald" individual?
* If it is Sid McDonald, will investigators check his phone and e-mail records to see what communication he might have had with Rove regarding the Siegelman case and other matters? Could Sid McDonald be called to testify before government investigators?
* Would such an investigation reveal a right-wing conspiracy that runs throughout the University of Alabama System?
* Exactly how much influence do Karl Rove and Bill Canary have on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees?
As you can see, these questions are serious--they are not amusing in the least. But reading the testimony where Rove let the McDonald name slip is downright comical. It's almost as if "Bush's Brain" got bored or lazy or both and inadvertently tossed out a name that wasn't supposed to be revealed. Then Rove immediately began to back track, suddenly unable to remember McDonald's name, hometown, gender . . . you name it.
Here is the "McDonald" segment of Rove's testimony:
Elliot Mincberg, counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, let the McDonald reference slide right on by. Maybe it's time somebody checks into it.
Rove mentioned two familiar names--William Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama, and Kelley McCullough Robertson, former Southeast political director for the Republican National Committee and state director for Karl Rove & Co.
Almost as an afterthought, Rove threw out a third name--a "lawyer" named McDonald. Strangely, Rove could not seem to remember the person's first name or hometown.
Which raises this question: Who in the heck is this McDonald person?
A source with strong knowledge of Alabama politics tells Legal Schnauzer that Rove probably was referring to Sidney L. McDonald, a prominent businessman from Town Grove, Alabama, and founder of DeltaCom Long Distance Services, the largest Alabama-owned telecommunications company.
McDonald has served in both the Alabama House of Representatives and the Alabama Senate and was one of the first members of the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE).
Perhaps of most interest here at Legal Schnauzer is this: McDonald has served on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees since 1992. That's the outfit that oversees the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). It's also the outfit that almost certainly either pushed for, or approved of, my unlawful termination in May 2008.
McDonald now is an emeritus member of the board. But he was president pro tempore when the board hired current UAB president Carol Garrison in 2002. Garrison, of course, was in charge at UAB when I was unlawfully terminated and also has seen a lengthy string of human-resources problems surface on her watch.
Interestingly, Garrison was hired in the aftermath of a major HR headache--the forced resignation of previous UAB president W. Ann Reynolds, who wound up suing the Board of Trustees for age and gender discrimination. McDonald said at the time that discrimination played no role in Reynolds' ouster. But Reynolds wound up receiving a nifty $475,000 settlement for her troubles.
One other note: McDonald also played a major role in the hiring of Malcolm Portera, the current chancellor of the University of Alabama System. Portera just happens to be a proud member of the Business Council of Alabama's board of directors, which is run by Karl Rove's close friend and ally, Bill Canary.
Our source notes that McDonald is not a lawyer, but he is close to the Alabama Republican Party and almost certainly is the person to whom Rove was referring.
If our source is correct, let's consider what that might mean for our Legal Schnauzer story:
* A trusted source for Karl Rove serves on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees;
* Said source hired a chancellor who now serves on Bill Canary's business-council board;
* Said source was president of the board when it hired Carol Garrison as UAB president;
* Your humble correspondent, a 19-year UAB employee at the time, happened to be writing a blog critical of the Bush Justice Department (on my own time), which we now know was hugely and corruptly influenced by Karl Rove;
* Carol Garrison, a virtual lapdog for Karl Rove's trusted Alabama source, OKed my unlawful termination.
So Karl Rove's Congressional testimony raises a number of questions that hit awfully close to home:
* Is the University of Alabama Board of Trustees essentially run by a bunch of Rove-influenced right wingers?
* Did Karl Rove's apparent ties to Sid McDonald have something to do with my unlawful termination?
* If Karl Rove is found to have corruptly influenced the Don Siegelman prosecution, did a member (or members) of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees play a role in it?
* Will Congressional investigators present followup questions to Rove in order to determine the exact identify of this "McDonald" individual?
* If it is Sid McDonald, will investigators check his phone and e-mail records to see what communication he might have had with Rove regarding the Siegelman case and other matters? Could Sid McDonald be called to testify before government investigators?
* Would such an investigation reveal a right-wing conspiracy that runs throughout the University of Alabama System?
* Exactly how much influence do Karl Rove and Bill Canary have on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees?
As you can see, these questions are serious--they are not amusing in the least. But reading the testimony where Rove let the McDonald name slip is downright comical. It's almost as if "Bush's Brain" got bored or lazy or both and inadvertently tossed out a name that wasn't supposed to be revealed. Then Rove immediately began to back track, suddenly unable to remember McDonald's name, hometown, gender . . . you name it.
Here is the "McDonald" segment of Rove's testimony:
Q Now you referred a few moments ago to contacts through friends and associates in Alabama, who would those be?
A Well, the person who ran my firm in 2000, Kelley McCullough, now Kelley McCullough Robertson, who came to Washington. She did not live in Alabama, but kept in touch in Alabama politics, and a lawyer in Birmingham -- or in Mobile, named McDonald, you know, friends. I might have talked to Bill Canary, who is the president of Alabama Business Association, but I can't recall.
Elliot Mincberg, counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, let the McDonald reference slide right on by. Maybe it's time somebody checks into it.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Holder's Former Law Firm Brags About Its GOP Ties
We recently learned that Attorney General Eric Holder's old law firm has alarmingly close ties to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and key figures from the George W. Bush administration.
Now we learn that the firm, Covington & Burling, actually brags on its Web site about its role in helping protect Karl Rove's e-mails that were stored on RNC servers.
Alabama attorney and Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson helped break the initial report about Holder's old firm. And Douglas Yates, an alert Legal Schnauzer reader from Fairbanks, Alaska, has added to it by revealing that Covington & Burling actually brags about its handiwork on behalf of the RNC--and Karl Rove.
Yates spotted this gem on the C&B Web site:
And we're supposed to believe that Eric Holder, a former member of this firm, is going to aggressively go after Karl Rove for possible wrongdoing?
Simpson says Holder's conflicts of interest could not be more clear. And they cover both the U.S. attorney firings and political prosecutions, such as the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases:
Now we learn that the firm, Covington & Burling, actually brags on its Web site about its role in helping protect Karl Rove's e-mails that were stored on RNC servers.
Alabama attorney and Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson helped break the initial report about Holder's old firm. And Douglas Yates, an alert Legal Schnauzer reader from Fairbanks, Alaska, has added to it by revealing that Covington & Burling actually brags about its handiwork on behalf of the RNC--and Karl Rove.
Yates spotted this gem on the C&B Web site:
We represented the Republican National Committee in connection with investigations by the House Judiciary Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committees regarding US attorney firings and the hosting of e-mail accounts for White House officials.
And we're supposed to believe that Eric Holder, a former member of this firm, is going to aggressively go after Karl Rove for possible wrongdoing?
Simpson says Holder's conflicts of interest could not be more clear. And they cover both the U.S. attorney firings and political prosecutions, such as the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases:
It seems Covington denied the RNC e-mails to the House Judiciary Committee on the firing of the nine U.S. attorneys and the political prosecutions. What that means is that Holder's very firm denied the e-mails in the Don Siegelman case, and the Paul Minor case. In fact they have been the ones negotiating with Congress, and I don't believe they have ever turned over the RNC e-mails at Chattanooga. So there you have it--Holder's firm protected Karl Rove from turning over the e-mails on the nine U.S. attorneys and the Siegelman and Minor matters, all while Holder was at that firm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)