Obama Official Fires Insult at Siegelman

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman ran into a prominent Obama-administration official in a hotel lobby last week at Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh.

Siegelman saw the chance encounter with Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor and assistant to the president for public engagement and intergovernmental affairs, as an opportunity. So he reminded her of the need to clean up the corrupt justice system Obama inherited from George W. Bush.

What did Siegelman get for his efforts? An insult.

Ron Brynaert, of Raw Story, covered Siegelman's speech at Netroots Nation, which included an account of his discussion with Jarrett. Reports Brynaert:

Siegelman began his short speech by delivering the news that he ran into Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, in the lobby of the hotel where the Netroots Nation convention was held.

After exchanging pleasantries, Siegelman told one of Obama's most trusted advisors, "It's time for Dr. Obama to perform surgery on Rove appointed (U.S.) attorneys."

"That ended the discussion," Siegelman said, drawing wry laughter from the crowd.

Did Jarrett have any response at all? Barely, according to Brynaert:

Jarrett basically told Siegelman that it was up to Netroots bloggers and activists to "bring it on," and garner support in order to influence the administration.

Siegelman took the statement seriously and launched a Web site called FireRoveProsecutors.com:

At the website, Siegelman notes that "after 7 months, only a handful of the hundreds of Bush-Rove DOJ appointees have been replaced."

"That's unacceptable," Siegelman continues. "It's time to clean house of all the Bush-Rove appointees in the Justice Department, including all 93 U.S. Attorneys, and ensure justice for all. Please email White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett below: Urge President Obama to do the right thing and Fire Rove's Prosecutors!"

Siegelman's disgust with the Obama administration was apparent in his remarks at Netroots Nation:

He told the audience that "no other president left the other team" in place after assuming office, rhetorically adding "Why not leave Condoleezza Rice, too?"

"The one thing Bush did right was to fire the US attorneys the moment he walked into office," Siegelman added.

Let's take a minute to ponder Jarrett's message. A man who spent nine months in federal prison because of a bogus political prosecution asked for her help in cleaning up the justice system. And she says it's up to bloggers and activists to convince the Obama administration that something needs to be done?

Is the Obama crowd too busy caving on a public option for health care to consider problems in the U.S. Department of Justice?

Jarrett insulted Siegelman and the numerous other victims of the Bush Justice Department--Cyril Wecht, Paul Minor, Wes Teel, John Whitfield . . . the list goes on.

She also insulted all Americans who give a rip about justice. And she insinuated that the Obama administration doesn't have any principles. It merely reacts to whatever interest group raises the most noise.

Pathetic! I smell a one-term presidency coming on--if something doesn't change in a hurry.

I've got news for Ms. Jarrett: Bloggers and activists already have done their part. They have already shown that Don Siegelman and others were victimized by a Justice Department run amok. And there is precious little evidence that the DOJ has improved any under Obama's leadership.

It's people in positions of power, like Ms. Jarrett, who have shown a lack of spine and principles. They have taken a matter of utmost seriousness--that goes to the very foundation of our Constitution--and turned it into a game, something that deserves attention only if "bloggers and activists" squawk loud enough.

Change we can believe in?

What a bunch of baloney.

Rove and Miers' Public Testimony Could Focus on Bush

Former Bush administration officials Karl Rove and Harriet Miers will be called to testify publicly about the U.S. attorney firings, according to a report from Jason Leopold at The Public Record.

The public examination is expected to cover President George W. Bush and information he might have received about the firings.

The news follows last week's release of documents from Rove and Miers' non-public testimony before staff members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Those documents included Rove's testimony about the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama. It is unclear if the public testimony, expected to come this fall, will cover the Siegelman case.

Reports Leopold:

Back in March, when House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers announced that he and his staff had reached an agreement to have Karl Rove and ex-White House Counsel Harriet Miers testify privately about their roles in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys he said his panel also reserved the right to haul the former Bush administration officials before Congress to testify publicly about the matter.

Conyers now intends to take advantage of that prearranged agreement and is expected to call Rove and Miers to testify before his panel sometime in the fall, according to several congressional sources that spoke on condition of anonymity.

Their appearance would mark the first time that senior Bush White House officials will testify publicly about a scandal that resulted in the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other top Justice Department officials.

What might be at the heart of the public testimony? The firing of former New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias will be central. But the role of George W. Bush is expected to come up, as well. Reports Leopold:

These sources added that, in addition to covering old ground, the committee wants Rove and Miers to publicly testify about what Bush knew and when he knew it.

In his interview with the committee last month, Rove repeatedly avoided responding to direct questions about whether Bush was aware of the plan. But in interviews he gave to The Washington Post and The New York Times last month, which the newspapers agreed not to publish until Rove completed his second round of testimony last month, he said he believed Bush “had been informed of the decision to let the prosecutors go.”

In an interview with the Post, Rove also said he’s “sure” Bush was told about the firings in advance.

“Maybe Harriet [Miers] talked to him about it,” Rove said. “I’m sure they did walk in at the end and say, ‘Mr. President, we want to make a change here.’”

That revelation would contradict numerous public statements made by White House spokespersons Tony Snow and Dana Perino that Bush did not play a role nor was he involved in the decision to dismiss the U.S. Attorneys and that the decisions emanated from the Department of Justice.

Leopold reveals that committee members were underwhelmed with the forthrightness displayed by Rove and Miers in their private testimony:

In a little known 12-page fact sheet the committee released last week summarizing Rove and Miers’ testimony, the panel said Rove’s “memory appeared to be quite selective.”

Rove “did not remember basic facts such as how and when he learned that David Iglesias would be removed, whether or not he ever saw the list of US Attorneys proposed for removal, or whether he even knew which US Attorneys were on the removal list when he approved the plan,” the committee’s fact sheet states. “Similarly, Mr. Rove clearly remembered obscure details such as a conversation with a now-deceased political scientist from a University of Wisconsin subcampus about possible flaws in the Justice Department’s rejection of Wisconsin vote fraud complaints.

“But he did not recall much more basic facts about the matter such as whether there were specific US Attorneys that White House officials wanted to replace during the President’s second term, or what statements he made to [Alberto Gonzales's former chief of staff] Kyle Sampson and [the Justice Department’s White House liaison] Monica Goodling at a political briefing he lead just weeks before the final stage of the removal process was launched. While failure of recollection is always an issue in investigations, the extent of these witnesses’ failure to recall the basic facts about recent events is disturbing, and continues to obscure the full truth about the US Attorney removals.”

The committee said Miers “suffered from an extraordinary failure of recollection during her interview, stating more than 150 times that she did not recall the answer to questions about the US Attorney matter, including fundamental and memorable facts such as what she meant when she wrote that a ‘decision’ had been made to remove David Iglesias from his position in October 2005, or whether or not Karl Rove specifically asked that David Iglesias be removed when Mr. Rove called her, agitated, from New Mexico.”

What will Congress be after with the public testimony? Leopold reports:

In discussing the U.S. Attorney firings, lawmakers want Rove and Miers to publicly explain who was responsible for disclosing to them specific details about ongoing corruption investigations some of the fired prosecutors had been conducting, some of which involved powerful Republican lawmakers, which Democrats believe was then used to justify the firings, congressional sources said.

Did Rove's Testimony Reveal a Felony?

The next time Karl Rove's doughy face appears on Fox News, you might want to allow this thought to enter your consciousness: "Is that man a felon, and if so, why is he getting time on a major network?"

Documents released last week by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee leave many unanswered questions. But one thing is clear: Rove's actions in the U.S. attorney firings give prosecutors solid grounds for considering a felony prosecution against him.

Will they actually move in that direction? Time will tell. But Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, says the evidence is compelling:

The 6,000 pages of evidence released recently by the House Judiciary Committee make plain that (Rove) orchestrated the firings, and that in so doing he was driven by partisan political concerns. They also eviscerate his claims to have played only a “minor role” as a “conduit.” The documents and testimony make clear that Rove expected U.S. attorneys to use their office for the benefit of the G.O.P.—by prosecuting Democrats, squelching investigations of Republicans, or bringing bogus voting fraud charges that would adversely affect Democrats—or they would lose their jobs. This conduct invites the prosecutors to consider whether Rove and others in the White House were seeking to “corruptly influence” criminal investigations—a felony. That call is up to Nora Dannehy, the special prosecutor appointed by former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey to study the matter.

Horton does not seem convinced that Dannehy will act in an aggressive fashion:

All indications now suggest that she has concluded that enough evidence exists to make out charges against some of the actors—though it is far from clear that she will seek indictments. After all, not all crimes are prosecuted, a fact that may provide Karl Rove a good deal of solace.

Horton indicates that a felony case could be made against Rove, without even considering his actions in the Don Siegelman prosecution. That topic also was covered in documents released last week. One central figure in the Siegelman drama, Alabama attorney and whistleblower Jill Simpson, says she has no intention of letting Rove get off the hook with his "I don't recall" and "not to my knowledge" answers.

Simpson knows what it is like to testify under oath about the Siegelman case. She did it before House Judiciary Committee lawyers in fall 2007. She says the committee needs to examine the telephone and e-mail records of key players, then come back at Rove with questions he can't squirm away from. Says Simpson:

I hope we have not run into a dead end where Congress does not really investigate anything else, and this is over. After all, when I came forward I promised to march to Washington and testify and tell the truth. I also promised to do all in my power to see that (other) witnesses had to testify. I helped get Mr. Rove to testify, and I don't intend on him being the last witness called.

George W. Bush and America the Stupid

Has America become a stupid country? Are eight years of "leadership" under George W. Bush an indication that we've become a nation of dunces?

Comedian and social critic Bill Maher makes a compelling case that the answer is yes. And a number of recent news reports indicate that Maher probably is right.

We might have an intelligent president now, with Barack Obama. But that doesn't mean we are an intelligent country. And if we are a stupid country, what does that say about our future?

Listen to Maher:

Before I go about demonstrating how, sadly, easy it is to prove the dumbness dragging down our country, let me just say that ignorance has life and death consequences. On the eve of the Iraq War, 69% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. Four years later, 34% still did. Or take the health care debate we're presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and "listen to their constituents." An urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything. At a recent town-hall meeting in South Carolina, a man stood up and told his Congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare," which is kind of like driving cross country to protest highways.

How stupid are we? Maher doesn't pull any punches:

I'm the bad guy for saying it's a stupid country, yet polls show that a majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government, or explain what the Bill of Rights is. 24% could not name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War. More than two-thirds of Americans don't know what's in Roe v. Wade. Two-thirds don't know what the Food and Drug Administration does. Some of this stuff you should be able to pick up simply by being alive. You know, like the way the Slumdog kid knew about cricket. . . .

And I haven't even brought up America's religious beliefs. But here's one fun fact you can take away: did you know only about half of Americans are aware that Judaism is an older religion than Christianity? That's right, half of America looks at books called the Old Testament and the New Testament and cannot figure out which one came first.

Signs that the American public is "out to lunch" are everywhere. Consider the latest news about George W. Bush and his mindset heading into the Iraq War:

Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East. . . . The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. . . . This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

We "elected" this guy president twice? This episode should send chills down every American's spine. But writer James A. Haught says the Charleston Gazette in West Virginia is the only mainstream newspaper to cover the story. And Haught says this is not the only example of Bush's nuttiness while in office:

The French revelation jibes with other known aspects of Bush’s renowned evangelical certitude. For example, a few months after his phone call to Chirac, Bush attended a 2003 summit in Egypt. The Palestinian foreign minister later said the American president told him he was “on a mission from God” to defeat Iraq. At that time, the White House called this claim “absurd.”

Bush left an enormous mess for his successor, and Haught puts that in perspective:

It’s awkward to say openly, but now-departed President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who “got saved.” He never should have been entrusted with the power to start wars.

On health care, the debate is becoming increasingly heated--and stupid. Steven Pearlstein, of the Washington Post, says Republicans are poisoning the debate with lies--and large numbers of Americans are buying them:

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

Will reform result in government takeover of the health-care system? No, says Pearlstein.

Will health reform cost at least $1 trillion? Nope.

Will reform bring an end to medical innovation and be a first step toward rationing? No and no.

Writes Pearlstein:

Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society--whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.

Actually, there is reason to wonder if Americans now are capable of coming together to get anything significant done. In a cover story on health-care reform, Time magazine notes that "it has been 44 years since an American president has succeeded at any new social policy nearly as ambitious as what Obama is trying to do."

Time is referring, of course, to Lyndon Johnson's push for Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Curiously, that also was the year the National Voting Rights Act passed, doing away with the widespread disenfranchisement of blacks and coming on the heels of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Noting the differences between now and then, Time reports, "Nor was the Republican Party of 1965 as uniformly conservative as it is today."

The timeline seems clear. The swing toward conservatism in America started with the onset of basic human rights for blacks. And almost 45 years later, the country is on the verge of becoming ungovernable--of being unable to deal with serious problems.

If we cannot deal with health-care reform, is there any hope to address a problem as complex as climate change?

Are we really stupid? Or have we just become paralyzed, and fragmented, by our race-based fears?

Siegelman and the Rove Testimony: Where Do We Go From Here?

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee took an important first step by interviewing former Bush White House advisor Karl Rove. But the truth about the Don Siegelman case will not come out unless Congress conducts a thorough investigation and uses that information to confront Rove, and others, with much tougher questions than have been posed so far.

That's the opinion of a central figure in the Siegelman case, which was overshadowed by the U.S. attorney firings in documents released this week by the House Judiciary Committee.

Alabama attorney and Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson said she was disappointed in the questioning of Rove. She said the questions were too soft, and they were not built on a strong investigation. But the inquiry could be a useful first step if Congress follows up in a thorough and aggressive manner.

"(The questioners) clearly were unprepared, and I had warned folks ahead of time that Mr. Rove and his lawyer might try to practice the art of distraction in the interview--and on several key questions he did just that," Simpson said. "He was even assisted by President Bush's lawyer, Emmett Flood. But it is to be expected, since Mr. Rove has a great deal of experience answering questions when potential criminal charges are looming in front of him."

The key to moving forward, Simpson says, is building a strong base of evidence. "I was disappointed that the House Judiciary Committee had not taken steps to subpoena the phone records of the numerous folks I testified about. I would have liked to have seen the Congressional investigators have the e-mail and phone records of Leura Canary; her U.S. attorney's office in Montgomery; the office of her husband, Bill Canary; their home records; the records of Governor Bob Riley and his son, Rob Riley; Noel Hillman (Public Integrity Section director) and Stewart Hall (head of Ogilvy/Federalist Group).

"Further I think before questioning Mr. Rove they should have questioned former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor. Maybe they should have subpoenaed Pryor's phone and e-mail records.

"For whatever reason, they elected to do no investigation of these key people--as is clear from the line of questions."

Simpson was baffled that no questions were based on her sworn testimony before Congress in fall 2007. "I'm not sure they even reread my affidavit or testimony because there were not any questions regarding what I said in my affidavit or testimony, specifically. I really had expected there would be, but there was not."

Simpson testified that she overhead Bill Canary and other GOP operatives planning a political prosecution of Siegelman and that they had worked it out with "Karl," an apparent reference to Rove. "One good question for Mr. Rove would have been, 'Did Bill Canary speak to you about actions of the Department of Justice, and if he did not, then why do you think he said he did? But they did not press that issue."

Is it possible that the Rove inquiry was a whitewash, with no intention of determining what really happened in the Siegelman case? Simpson fears the answer might be yes. But she does see some hopeful signs.

"I think a few important things came out of this. Clearly there was evidence about Mr. Rove watching the races down here in Alabama--and being involved; he just couldn't recall a single detail, best I could tell from his answers. I think it is clear that Mr Rove appears to be having senior moments that need to be checked out--or he is lying through his teeth. I have my opinion about that, but time will tell. . . .

"The evidence also clearly showed he had a friendship with Bill Canary. But Mr. Rove couldn't recall the name of Canary's wife, the Siegelman prosecutor. Does anyone buy that? Clearly he knew all the Alabama players, and many of them had claimed to barely knowing him in the summer of 2007, when my affidavit surfaced in the Time magazine article by Adam Zagorin. But Mr. Rove couldn't recall one detailed instance of seeing these people in person. That's ridiculous."

Simpson said the Rove testimony reminded her of an ancient Arabian proverb. "If the camel gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow, so the tale goes. And before long, all the people sleeping in the tent will be run out into the cold.

"Karl Rove was the camel who stuck his nose into matters at the Justice Department. Before you knew it, he was in the tent and running the whole show, forcing the good honest folks out of the tent."

The key, Simpson says, is to understand how the camel got his nose under the DOJ tent--and to make sure it never happens again. After all, Simpson says with some colorful language, camels like Karl Rove leave an ungodly mess that is hard to clean up.

"We should never allow political camels like Karl Rove in the DOJ tent because their s**t is really hard to clean up. It is hard to restore a tent that has been s**t in by such an unruly camel.

"Always remember: Camel s**t doesn't bother the camel, only the people who have to smell it."

Rove did NOT Deny Involvement in the Siegelman Case

Reports in both the mainstream and Web press indicate that Karl Rove, in his testimony before representatives of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, denied involvement in the Don Siegelman case.

There is only one problem with those reports: They are not true.

So why would The Birmingham News run a story with the headline: "Rove Denies Role in Siegelman Case"? Why would veteran broadcast journalist Tim Lennox write a blog post with the title: "The Siegelman-Rove (Non) Connection"?

Well, The Birmingham News has long been a right-wing tool that never has made an honest effort at seeking the truth in the Siegelman story. Lennox has a reputation as a solid and fair reporter, so I can only assume that he just had an off day. For one thing, he links to the News story, indicating he relied on it for his analysis. That was his first mistake, right there.

Like many depositions, the Rove/Elliot Mincberg encounter took a number of twists and turns. Similar questions were asked multiple times, with slight variations. Rove gave slightly varying answers, appearing to contradict himself in one or two instances.

But the inquiry came down to two "money questions." In both instances, the question essentially was this: Did Rove, or anyone working for him, ever have any communications with anyone about a possible criminal investigation or prosecution of Don Siegelman?

Rove's answer both times? "Not that I'm aware of."

That is not a denial.

What is it? It's an illustration of one of the legal profession's dirty secrets. I'm told that it is common for lawyers to coach clients on how to obscure the truth without technically lying under oath. The way to do it is with answers like "not that I'm aware of," "I don't recall," or "I don't remember."

I call it the "tap dance around perjury." And to no one's surprise, Rove was well versed on all the tap dance's various steps. His 67 pages worth of testimony about the Siegelman case was filled with "tap dance" answers.

Mincberg essentially asked two sets of questions, focusing on--(1) the period from Siegelman's election in 1998 to the end of 2002; and (2) the period from the end of 2002 to the release of the Montgomery indictment in October 2005.

Here is a sample question and answer from the first set:

Q All right. Let's go back if we could, then, to the line we had just started relating to contacts -- relating to Governor Siegelman through the end of 2002. In the period of time, again, between Governor Siegelman's election and the end of 2002, did you ever communicate about Governor Siegelman with anyone working at the Department of Justice?

A No.

That is an outright denial on Rove's part. But his answers to followup questions quickly become slippery. When asked if anyone from the White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA), Republican National Committee (RNC), or Republican Governors' Association (RGA) communicated with the Justice Department, Rove's answer is "not to the best of my knowledge."

Rove specifically is asked if he had communicated about the Siegelman case with Noel Hillman, then head of the DOJ's Public Integrity Section. The answer: "No, not that I recall."

Note that Rove earlier had emphatically answered no about communicating with anyone at DOJ regarding Siegelman. But when asked about communicating with Noel Hillman, a key figure at the DOJ, Rove's answer is that he doesn't recall. So much for consistency.

Mincberg goes on to ask if Rove or anyone from any GOP-connected groups had communicated about Siegelman with:

* Any Alabama U.S. attorney's office;

* The Alabama attorney general's office or any other state law-enforcement agency;

* Bill Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama;

* Bob Riley, Rob Riley, or anyone in the Riley administration; or

* Members of the media or press.

Rove's answers were "not that I'm aware of" or "not that I recall." The only exception was regarding former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor. Rove acknowledged a conversation with Pryor about Siegelman, but said he had not asked for any action to be taken.

Interestingly, when Rove was asked about the Rileys, his first response was: "Could you repeat that question?" Sounds like Rove needed to gather himself for that one.

What about the "money question," the one that covers everything from 1998 to 2002? Here is that question and answer:

Q Again, in the period of time between Governor Siegelman's election and the end of 2002, did you or anyone working for you ever have any communications with anyone about a possible criminal investigation, prosecution, or illegal acts by Governor Siegelman?

A Not that I'm aware of.

No denial.

What about the second "money question," the one that covers everything from 2002 to October 2005? In fact, this one covers the whole enchilada. Here is that question and answer:

Q Under penalty of prosecution under 18 U.S. Code 1001, do you stand by your statements that you had no communications, other than the ones you've testified to generally today relating to -- relating to possible investigation, prosecution, or criminal acts by Governor Siegelman?

A I stand by my statement. I'm not aware of any conversations other than the ones I have indicated.

Again, no denial.

Speaking of non-denials, Rove was asked about Jill Simpson, the Alabama whistleblower who stated under oath that she overheard GOP operatives planning a political prosecution of Siegelman--and it was all worked out with "Karl." Here is that exchange:

Q Now, you also in this same article that we are referring to, state that you do not recall ever meeting or talking to Jill Simpson, the person who accused you of pressing for Siegelman to be investigated and claims to have met you. Under penalty of prosecution under 18 U.S. Code 1001, do you stand by your statements that you have never met or spoken to Jill Simpson?

A I have no recollection of meeting her or talking to her.

That was near the end of the deposition. By then, our guy Karl was slippery indeed.

The bottom line? The Rove/Mincberg deposition was not conclusive about much.

Did Mincberg nail Rove, with bombshell testimony or evidence that "Bush's Brain" clearly was behind the Siegelman prosecution? No, but I doubt that any rational human being thought that was going to happen on this go-around.

Did Rove deny that he or his colleagues were involved? No.

Did the deposition lay ground for much more extensive inquiry. Definitely.

Alabama Law Firm Gets Fleeced in Web Scam

We don't normally find crime amusing. But a recent news item about crime here in Birmingham made me laugh out loud. In fact, I'm having to wipe a smile off my face right now, just thinking about it.

What was the crime? An online scam artist bilked a Birmingham business out of $200,000 to $400,000.

The victim? A law firm. And get this: It apparently was a debt-collection law firm.

If you find the words "couldn't happen to a nicer bunch" leaving your lips, join the crowd.

Steve Ferguson, a special agent with the FBI office in Birmingham, described the crime to The Birmingham News:

A scammer pretending to represent an overseas company contacts a law firm via e-mail saying it needs the firm's help in collecting a debt from a U.S. client. In the Birmingham case, the "company" pretended to be from Asia. The law firm will also get a bogus referral from another law firm, saying they've worked with the company before.

Once the communication begins, the supposed debtor finds out that legal action is afoot, contacts the law firm and agrees to pay its tab. A counterfeit check is deposited in the law firm's account. The "client" tells the law firm to subtract its fees and send the balance to the "client's" overseas account. Once the bank discovers the check is fake, the law firm is held responsible for the full amount.

The FBI declined to name the Birmingham firm that got suckered. But probably the four best-known debt-collection firms in Birmingham are Zarzaur & Schwartz, Nathan & Nathan, Ingram & Associates, and Halcomb & Wertheim.

Debt collectors, and the law firms who represent them, are notorious for violating federal law. I've witnessed that firsthand.

If any of the four firms mentioned above got duped . . . well, this is one time I might have to pull for the criminals to get away with it.

And talk about hypocrisy. The Alabama State Bar apparently is concerned, sending an e-mail to warn law firms about the scam. How does the State Bar react when informed that a law firm has scammed a client? Often with a form letter telling the client, in so many words, "tough luck, we're not even going to investigate."

I've witnessed that firsthand, too.

Did Rove Follow Siegelman Case? Oh, Yes

Karl Rove's defenders have contended that "Bush's Brain" was much too busy as White House senior advisor to keep up with Alabama politics.

But the U.S. House Judiciary Committee released documents and testimony yesterday showing that Rove did keep up with Alabama politics--including the legal difficulties of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.

Rove even received an "Alabama News Alert" from a White House staffer, trumpeting the Siegelman conviction before it had appeared on evening newscasts.

Elliott Mincberg, chief counsel for oversight and investigations at the House Judiciary Committee, interrogated Rove about the Siegelman case.

Mincberg produced at least four documents that revealed Rove's keen interest in Alabama while serving in the Bush White House. The documents were roughly from 2000 to 2005:

Document No. 1: E-mail from Rove to Susan Ralston and Matt Schlapp

Rove sent an e-mail to Susan Ralston, one of his chief deputies, and Matt Schlapp, director of the White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA), attaching a copy of the April 12, 2004, Southern Political Report.

Mincberg reads a key passage from the article:

Q . . . It says, and I quote, With Governor Bob Riley having low approval ratings following his major defeat last year on a tax restructuring proposal, lots of Democrats are sending signals they might run for Governor in 2 years. Ex-Governor, Don Siegelman, who barely lost to Riley in 2002, has made no secret of his ambition to serve as Governor again, end quote.

Rove says he doesn't recall seeing the article, but Mincberg follows:

Q But in any event, it certainly stands to reason that Siegelman would be weakened if he was charged with crimes, correct?

A Correct.

Document No. 2: E-mail from Rove to Barbara Jo Goergen

Rove sent an e-mail to Barbara Jo Goergen, his executive assistant, attaching an article about federal prosecutors in Birmingham dropping the first case against Siegelman. It referenced the possibility of a Siegelman-Bob Riley rematch for governor in 2006.

Mincberg directs Rove to a section in the article that says, "The other Democrat who might run is ex-Governor Don Siegelman." This exchange ensues:

Q And going down the page, it discusses the fact that he is a, quote, "superb politician despite being dogged by several ethical clouds." Do you see that reference?

A Yes. You ellipsed out "losing to challenger Riley in 2002 by a mere 48.9 to 49.1."

Q And I'm happy for you to add that. It goes on to say, "This year could be different. Federal prosecutors in Birmingham had to drop their case against Siegelman when the judge threw out the major charge against him." Do you see that reference?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall seeing this?

A No.

Q Do you agree that Siegelman would have been a serious contender in the 2006 race if his legal problems were resolved?

A Again, I'm not certain if he would or wouldn't be, because he faced a primary with a couple of -- at least one very ambitious and very popular official, and probably several.

Q On the other hand, if Siegelman were reindicted, that would have harmed him politically and made it more difficult for him to win the governorship?

A It generally creates problems, yes.

Q And, in fact, the article references the fact there is a Federal grand jury in Montgomery looking into his activities as Governor, correct?

A Correct.

Document No. 3: E-mail from Sarah Taylor to Karl Rove

Taylor, who replaced Matt Schlapp as director of OPA, sent an e-mail to Rove on February 10, 2005. The e-mail references Kelley McCullough "Kitty" Robertson, former Southeast political director for the Republican National Committee and a woman with strong ties to Alabama. Robertson apparently was trying to determine if Bob Riley intended to run for re-election as governor, even though his approval numbers were down following his failed attempt at tax reform. Here is the exchange:

Q Well, take a look, if you would, at Document 42 which is an e-mail from Sara Taylor to you on February 10, 2005. And Ms. Taylor says, quote, "We asked Kitty to do some digging, no word for sure, but sounds like probably Riley will run," end quote. Do you see that?

A Uh-huh. Yes.

Q And Kitty, I take it, refers to Kelley McCullough . . . ?

Q And she was at the RNC?

A Yes.

Q Does this refresh your recollection about any communications you had with Sara Taylor relating to Governor Riley's plans for reelection and the Alabama's Governor's race?

A No, I don't. I was asked to do a fund-raiser in 2006. This may have been provoked by that why was I going to go down there and what was I going to do?

Q In any event, Ms. Taylor did --

A Or '05. Excuse me.

Q '05, right. In any event, Ms. Taylor did send you an e-mail reporting that the result of the digging that was asked to be done was that it looked like Governor Riley probably would run for reelection?

A It is unclear whether I asked her to do that digging or not. She said, We asked Kitty to do that digging.

Q You just don't recall if that impulse came from OPA or from you?

A Yes.

Document No. 4: E-mail from Sarah Taylor to Karl Rove

When Siegelman was convicted in Montgomery in June 2006, Rove tells Mincberg that he learned about it from reading clips or watching the evening news.

But Taylor's e-mail has the heading "Alabama News Alert," dated June 29, 2006. That was the date of Siegelman's conviction. Taylor is forwarding information from Jason Huntsberry, an OPA regional director who covered Alabama. Here is the exchange:

Q And the e-mail reads, quote: Just spoke with Toby and word is that Former Governor Siegelman, paren, 10 counts, closed paren, and Richard Scrushy, paren, every account, closed paren, were just convicted. Details to follow. Is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Toby, again, would be Toby in Governor Riley's office?

A I assume that is Toby Roth, yes.

Q Do you recall getting this e-mail?

A I don't. But I'm sure I did. And I'm sure I looked at it. It is 5:52 p.m. is the sent time. So I could have conceivably seen it sometime that evening, at which time I may have seen it on the evening news as well.
Q But this would suggest that regardless of whether or not you saw it on the evening news, you also got an e-mail from Sara Taylor forwarding something that came from Governor Riley's chief of staff, saying that Governor Siegelman had been convicted, correct?

A Right.

Alabama Fraud Case Shows The Value of Friends in High Places

Is justice in America blind? Hah!

Anyone who still subscribes to that canard should consider the case of William and Marie King, who operated a health-care consulting company called King & Associates in Shelby County, Alabama.

Mr. and Mrs. King will pay $1.44 million to settle a whistleblower case against them, and they will serve 24- and 18-month prison sentences, respectively. They were charged with submitting fraudulent documents to Medicare for reimbursement.

Now, compare the Kings' punishment to that meted out in two other Alabama health-care fraud cases.

One, which we've written about extensively here at Legal Schnauzer, involves the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). One of that case's whistleblowers, a forensic accountant, estimated the fraud at about $600 million over 10 years. What kind of punishment did UAB receive? It settled the case for about $3.4 million, way less than 1 percent of the alleged total. Did anyone from UAB go to prison? Not even close.

In the Kings' case, they caused Medicare to lose $740,000, and they paid almost $1.44 million, roughly twice the total.

Hmmm, is it possible that UAB received favorable treatment because it is governed by the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, which includes some of the state's most prominent corporate titans? Nah! Could the presence of trustees such as Paul Bryant Jr., son of the late iconic football coach, have resulted in UAB's wrist slap from the Department of Justice? Nah!

Two, consider the case of Performance Group LLC, a company partly owned by Homewood attorney Rob Riley, the son of Governor Bob Riley. A whistleblower complaint alleges that Riley's company has practiced extensive health-care fraud, very similar to what the Kings were found to have done. Two of Riley's partners in the company just happen to be affiliated with UAB.

So what consequences have Riley & Company faced? So far, not a thing. The Justice Department, when Alice Martin led the Northern District of Alabama, declined to intervene, leaving the whistleblower to fend for herself. The case wound up being dismissed without prejudice, meaning it could be brought again. But would new U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance handle it differently than Alice Martin did?

We wrote about the King case several months back and noted that it was a classic illustration of Alice Martin's hypocrisy on health-care fraud.

Will Joyce Vance, with her deep ties to Birmingham's legal and business community, be any better? That remains an intriguing question. Vance announced the King settlement last Friday. Patrick Maley, FBI special agent in charge, made a statement that captured the importance of such cases:

"This is not a victimless crime--every person who struggles to pay for health care benefits; every older person who worries about Medicare's ability to cover them; every taxpayer who helps fund these programs--these are all victims."

Well stated by Maley. But what about the bigger, more well-connected fish in the health-care fraud pond? Does the Justice Department have the spine to go after them?

This could be an interesting early test for Joyce White Vance. The settlement with UAB allows her office to reopen the investigation, pretty much at any point, for any reason. And certainly she has the authority to intervene in the Rob Riley/Performance Group case.

Joyce Vance has shown that she is willing to flex her prosecutorial muscle against the William and Marie Kings of the world. What about people near the heart of Alabama's power structure? Is she willing to unmask the frauds that they commit?

Montana Consumer Hits Debt Collector Where It Hurts

The federal law that is supposed to protect consumers from unscrupulous debt collectors is abysmally weak.

If you ever need proof that Congress is bought by business interests, such as credit-card companies and debt collectors, check out the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). It's got about as much teeth as a chihuahua on Valium.
But every now and then a consumer, in spite of the pathetic law, makes an abusive debt collector pay--big time. Such a case happened a few weeks back in Montana.

Timothy McCollough, of Laurel, Montana, had been sued by a North Dakota law firm even though the time limit for collecting the debt had passed, and one similar lawsuit already had been dismissed. When the debt-collection firm kept hounding him, McCollough got mad--and he got even.

A federal jury in April found in McCollough's favor and awarded $311,000 in damages. The Billings Gazette reported:

Billings attorney John Heenan, who represented McCollough, said the verdict sends a message: "Debt collector lawyers need to follow the rules in Montana." McCollough stood up for the thousands of people getting sued by debt collection lawyers and who don't know how to defend themselves, he said.

The FDCPA provides for statutory damages up to $1,000. That's really going to scare a debt-collection outfit, isn't it? They've got that much in change floating around under their couches.

But the law does allow for attorney fees, monetary damages (payment for bogus debts), actual damages for stress-related harm, and damages for emotional distress. When a debt-collector has acted egregiously, and many of them do, the damages can start to add up. Reports the Billings Gazette:

The jury awarded McCollough $250,000 for emotional distress, the statutory maximum of $1,000 for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and $60,000 in punitive damages.

McCollough is disabled, and that might have made him a particularly sympathetic plaintiff. Hopefully, the jury acted mainly on the law firm's unlawful and nasty behavior.

Debt collection does not have to be a sleazy industry. Some practitioners, particularly those who represent original creditors, are quite reputable. But McCollough became entangled with a third-party debt buyer. And his lawsuit shines light on how those bottom feeders operate:

McCollough's lawsuit stemmed from a credit card debt he owed to Chase Manhattan Bank from the 1990s.

McCollough suffered a head injury in 1990 when he was hit with an iron bar. The injury left him disabled and eventually he began receiving Social Security benefits, which are exempt from collections.

Nevertheless, McCollough testified, he worked with other credit card companies to pay his debts. Chase was the only company that wouldn't work with him, he said.

The debt was sold to a collection company, CACV of Colorado, which sued him in Yellowstone County in 2005. McCollough responded himself, saying the five-year statute of limitations had expired, he had no money and had been harassed by Chase. The case was dismissed.

Two years later, the North Dakota firm, on behalf of CACV, sued McCollough for $9,800, which included about $6,000 in interest and attorney fees.

Getting served a second time angered and frustrated McCollough.

"I was being shoved around," he said. "I don't like bullies. I never have. I got mad. I'm still mad."

I can empathize with what McCollough went through. Mrs. Schnauzer and I know what it's like to be targeted by unethical debt collectors and the slimy lawyers they hire.

We are particularly familiar with an outfit called NCO, which is based in Horsham, Pennsylvania, and is notorious for abusing consumers. And we are familiar with a Birmingham lawyer named Angie Ingram, who makes a habit of suing people on behalf of something called the NCO Attorney Network.

We have clear evidence that NCO and Angie Ingram violated the FDCPA in our case. And based on a recent check of court records, it appears they have sued a number of folks in the Birmingham area on alleged debts involving American Express, the original creditor in our case.

If you live in Alabama and have been sued or threatened with a lawsuit by NCO and Angie Ingram--and the alleged debt involves American Express--it's possible that NCO and Ingram have followed the law in your case. But based on our experience, I would say that's doubtful.

We will be showing you exactly how these slippery outfits operate outside the law. If you use a credit card, and most people do, you will want to stay tuned.