Karl Rove Acts Like a Jackass to Don Siegelman's Daughter at Democratic National Convention

Dana and Don Siegelman

Dana Siegelman, the daughter of Alabama's former governor, approached Karl Rove this week at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. Showing Rove more politeness than he deserved, Ms. Siegelman introduced herself and tried to ask if there is anything Rove could do to help her father. After all, Don Siegelman is due to report to federal custody next Tuesday as the victim of perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in American history.

Did Karl Rove care about the human costs of gross injustice? Not on your life. What did Dana Siegelman get for her trouble? An epic lesson in Republican rudeness.

The TYT Network interviewed Dana Siegelman about her brief experience in Rove's orbit, and you can view the full video at the end of this post. If you ever have asked yourself, "Just how big a jackass is Karl Rove?" Dana Siegelman provides the answer with the following words:

I had no idea that Karl Rove would dare step in this building. And when I found out this morning that he was here, I sort of felt . . . I need to meet this person and let him know what he's done to my family. 

He didn't give me that opportunity. Instead, as soon as I introduced myself, which I thought I did very politely--"Sir, Don Siegelman's daughter, I just wanted to meet you and say . . . --he cut me off right away and started shaking his finger in my face: "Tell your dad not to use my name to make money," which Dad obviously isn't . . . so I thought, "OK, buddy, I don't know if you're quite with it." 

He certainly knew who Don Siegelman was, and he certainly was angry to know that I was his daughter. I didn't get to ask him what I wanted to ask him, which was, "At this point, is there any way you feel you could help us?" Make him feel important, let him know that I'm not trying to attack him. But also let him know that I think he can do something. He knows the people behind my dad's case, he pulled a lot of strings. . . . He could, if he wanted to, right this wrong--and do it for the country and all the people that were politically prosecuted. 

I don't know if meeting him will have any effect. I don't know if it will touch him where it should.

Bottom line? Dana Siegelman tried to interact with Karl Rove in a human way, as one person to another. And she didn't have much luck, probably because Rove is more jackass than human.

The Dana Siegelman interview hit home to me on multiple levels. As she noted, the corruption of our justice system under Karl Rove and others in the George W. Bush administration goes way beyond her father. It goes to Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield, who were unlawfully prosecuted in Mississippi in a case that I call a "bookend" for the Siegelman debacle.

For that matter, it goes right here to the Schnauzer household, where both my wife and I have been cheated out of our jobs because I chose to start a blog and write truthfully about judicial corruption in our state and beyond, including the Siegelman case.

In fact, I am being cheated at this very moment in my wrongful termination lawsuit against the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). My case is before the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, and it is being heard by two of the same justices--Gerald Bard Tjoflat and J.L. Edmondson--who unlawfully upheld convictions in the Siegelman case.

They appear set to uphold the violation of black-letter law by the trial court in Birmingham, which granted summary judgment to the university without giving me an opportunity to conduct any discovery. My lawsuit alleges what tape-recorded evidence clearly proves--that I was fired because of the content on my blog about the Siegelman case--and I repeatedly have criticized Tjoflat and Edmondson, on my blog and some half dozen national Web sites, for their bogus ruling in U.S. v. Siegelman.

So what happens? They wind up on the three-judge panel that is hearing the appeal in my employment lawsuit. The well-known standard for recusal is the following: Could a judge's impartiality reasonably be questioned? By that standard, Tjoflat and Edmondson clearly should never have sat on my panel, and I have filed a motion for them to recuse.

In the past two days, I've written about the latest in my case at the following posts:


* Here's How I Got Screwed By the Same Appellate Court In Atlanta That Cheated Don Siegelman;


* How Did the Same Judges from the Siegelman Case Wind Up On the Appeal of My Lawsuit Against UAB?


Will Tjoflat and Edmondson follow the law and step down? I doubt it. Will the same judges who cheated Don Siegelman continue to cheat me? I imagine so.

That's the system that Karl Rove has given us. And Dana Siegelman makes an eloquent statement about the harm that Rove and others have inflicted on our democracy.

Why Did Karl Rove and His GOP Thugs Target Don Siegelman in Alabama?

Don Siegelman

As we set sail on 2012, a year in which political news will be dominated by the build up toward a presidential election, the mind drifts back to events that led us to this peculiar moment in American history. Our first black president is seeking re-election--and should be a shoo-in, even though he has disappointed huge numbers of his progressive base. The Republican Party counters with perhaps the weakest field of candidates any major party ever has put forth.

Why so much disarray and disgust on both sides of the political fence in an election year? I would propose that it's because the nation still has not recovered from eight years of the disastrous George W. Bush administration. Obama has been hamstrung for four years by the economic, financial, and international messes he inherited from Bush. Republicans cannot hammer too hard on the nation's woes without coming awfully close to admitting that one of their own caused them.

Here in Alabama, all of this has me thinking about one of the great political mysteries of the past generation. It's a mystery that began to unfold before Bush ever took office, but it did not gain national attention until Dubya and his acolytes were in charge of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The mystery can be summarized by two questions: (1) Why did Karl Rove and his pro-business GOP thugs target Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman? (2) Why did the Bush administration proceed with what has become the most notorious political prosecution in American history?

Those questions are particularly powerful now because Siegelman last week filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for review of his 2006 convictions on bribery and obstruction of justice charges. This appears to be Siegelman's last crack at appellate review, and if it is denied, he probably is headed back to federal prison.

I've probably written more words about the Siegelman affair than just about anyone on the planet, so I might as well take a crack at answering those questions.

Those who believe that the Siegelman prosecution was legitimate, that the former governor and codefendant Richard Scrushy really did commit crimes over a contribution to an education-lottery campaign, often say something like this: "Why would Karl Rove and  his associates worry about Don Siegelman? Alabama is a backwater state that nobody cares about, and its governor was not all that important. Why would Rove even care about a relative nobody like Don Siegelman?"

Folks who ask these questions underestimate Alabama's strategic importance. They also underestimate the grotesque greed and lust for power that has come to grip the modern GOP. Most importantly, they ignore the fact that Don Siegelman was a central figure in three financial and political scenarios that spelled potential danger for the Republican Party and the money men who support it. Let's examine these scenarios:

* The Duel Over An Air Force Refueling-Tanker Contract--Journalist/lawyer Andrew Kreig, of the D.C.-based Justice Integrity Project, has reported that the Siegelman prosecution was driven largely by the fierce competition between Boeing and EADS for a $40-billion Air Force refueling-tanker contract. Republicans are known to wear patriotism on their sleeves, so you might expect them to support an American company such as Boeing. But EADS planned to build a manufacturing facility in Mobile, Alabama, and that meant the business forces that control our state strongly supported the European contender. Where does Siegelman fit into this picture? He had helped Boeing expand a plant in Huntsville, Alabama, and locate a new facility in Decatur, Alabama. Siegelman served as governor from 1998 to 2002, and business interests feared he would favor Boeing over EADS during a second term. How to get Siegelman out of the picture? About three months after Siegelman took office, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor launched an investigation that later would be taken over by federal officials. Key events in the investigation seemed to be timed around the 2002 election, which Siegelman lost to challenger Bob Riley, and the 2006 election--when Siegelman had appeared to be the strongest likely challenger to Riley. Who ran Bill Pryor's campaign for the attorney general's office? Why, none other than Karl Rove. Did Pryor's efforts eventually pay off? Bush appointed him to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Did the effort to bring down Siegelman pay off? No, it did not; the tanker contract went to Boeing.

* The Battle Over Fraud and ExxonMobil--As early as 1995, Alabama conservation officials began to suspect that oil companies weren't paying the proper amounts under leases for natural-gas rights. The issue surfaced under Republican Governor Fob James but picked up steam when Siegelman took office in 1999. He hired the Mobile law firm of Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder and Brown to represent the state in lawsuits involving oil companies. The firm must have done a pretty good job because it won a $3.5-billion jury verdict against ExxonMobil. But the punitive damages were overturned by the Republican-packed Alabama Supreme Court. Did Karl Rove and his buddies at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce want to make sure that Don Siegelman never again went after big oil? I would say the answer is yes.

* The Threat of a Pro-Gun Democrat in the Deep South--Siegelman built a relatively strong progressive record while holding four different statewide offices in Alabama--governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. But he was to the right of most Democrats on the issue of guns. And sources tell Legal Schnauzer this infuriated, and terrified, Republican politicos. Our sources say that Siegelman was not a hard-core supporter of gun rights, but he developed a relatively friendly relationship with the National Rifle Association for his support of guns in hunting and other sporting activities. In fact, NRA icon Charlton Heston signed a letter supporting Siegelman in the 2002 governor's race. Why would this cause considerable consternation among Republicans? Political scientists who studied the 2000 presidential race have noted that the NRA's massive spending that helped place normally Democratic West Virginia in the GOP column was a critical factor in winning the White House for George W. Bush. Had West Virginia remained a Democratic stronghold, the subsequent Florida vote-counting controversy would have mattered little; Al Gore already would have had the electoral vote sewn up. Republicans have made huge political strides from scaring sportsmen with the notion that Democrats are going to take away their guns. But there was Siegelman, in the heart of deep-red Dixie, winning an endorsement from the NRA. If other Southern Democrats had taken similar stances on guns, it could have spelled political calamity for Republicans. Is that the reason they had to take down Siegelman?

Our list of GOP motivations for the Siegelman prosecution is not all inclusive. It does not include, for example, the fact that Siegelman threatened Jack Abramoff and his Mississippi gaming clients by proposing an education lottery in Alabama.

So what is our No. 1 reason that Karl Rove and his thugs targeted Don Siegelman? The gun issue is perhaps the most interesting one because of its potential for national political implications; Democrats probably should ponder whether it's wise to come across as anti-gun in a country that clearly loves its firearms. The Boeing vs. EADS issue is intriguing because of the sheer volume of money involved. But when you consider the timing and the long-standing power of the players involved, I would say Siegelman's battles with the oil industry are the No. 1 reason he was targeted.

Siegelman sicced a Mobile law firm on big oil in 1999, and the Boeing/EADS battle didn't pick up major steam until about 2001. The gun issue and Charlton Heston did not become known until just before the 2002 election.

It's not enough for big oil to screw consumers at the pumps every summer. It also wants to defraud states out of the true value for their mineral rights. Could Alabama have used that $3.5 billion? It sure could have--for better schools, roads and bridges, health care, you name it.

Don Siegelman was fighting for that, and our guess is, that's why big oil decided he had to be stopped.

"Atticus v. The Architect," documentary about the political prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, now is available online via Amazon

From amazon.com

A documentary about the political prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman now is available online via Amazon.

Atticus v. The Architect: The Political Assassination of Don Siegelman is available via Amazon streaming for $4.99. It can be purchased via an Amazon electronic link for $14.99.

Also, the DVD can be purchased at the following link. And it is expected to be on iTunes in a few days.

Directed by Steve Wimberly, the film is a detailed account of the role corrupt Republican operatives -- including Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff, and Bill Canary -- played in launching a campaign to remove Siegelman as a political opponent by having him and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy unlawfully prosecuted and sent to federal prison for roughly six years each. "The Architect" is a reference to Karl Rove, former political adviser to George W. Bush.

Here is the film description from Amazon:

The story behind the most notorious political prosecution in American history. How a corrupt cadre of politicos, led by Karl Rove, secretly rigged a federal court to railroad former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman into jail because they couldn't beat him at the polls. It exposes the dark underbelly of political corruption, and reveals the moral crisis plaguing American politics.

Legal Schnauzer has published several hundred posts about the Siegelman case -- the most extensive coverage available anywhere -- and was used as a resource during production of the film.

Since its premiere last May at Birmingham's classic Alabama Theatre, Atticus has been screened at a number of theatres around the South -- often with Siegelman on hand to take questions afterwards. A screening at the Davis Theatre in Montgomery drew a capacity crowd after the Capri Theatre backed out of a plan to show the film, under pressure from board member and former federal prosecutor Leura Canary.

Amazon is providing the first widespread distribution of the film.

A key point in the movie comes when Montgomery attorney Tommy Gallion, a longtime Republican figure on the state and national scenes, reveals that he received an invitation to a meeting where the Siegelman prosecution was to be discussed. Gallion, repulsed by the idea, declined the invitation, but plans called for Karl Rove to attend the meeting.

The documentary generally has received stellar reviews, as we reported last August:

A documentary about the political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman is "worth your time and your anger," according to a review at the Alabama Political Reporter (APR). The Prattville-based news site pledged to help arrange a showing of the film in Montgomery. . . .

Josh Moon, of APR, says the documentary makes for a powerful viewing experience. He calls it "scorching." From his review:

No wonder Leura Canary didn’t want people to see the Siegelman documentary.

“Atticus v. The Architect: The Political Assassination of Don Siegelman” is a scorching documentary, particularly if you’re one of the many Republican officials who played a role in the prosecution of Alabama’s former Governor.

The film does not offer much in the way of new information about the Siegelman case, Moon writes. But it takes a complex story and presents it in a solid, professional, understandable package for a mainstream audience:

For all of the local attention this film has received – thanks in large part to Canary’s pushback against allowing the film to be shown in Montgomery — “Atticus” doesn’t really reveal much in the way of new information. What it does – and it’s the first medium to do so – is put the whole sordid ordeal in one tidy package that’s easy for the common person to digest.

That alone would be reason enough for Canary and others to want it stopped. Because it’s only through that perspective, with all of the facts and the sequence of events laid out before you, that you understand the grandness of the scheme against Siegelman. And it is only through that perspective that the impossibility of such a grand conspiracy can be removed, and the lengths and depths to which some will go to gain a political advantage can be exposed.

Here is more from Moon's review:

Starting with the 2002 gubernatorial race between Siegelman and Bob Riley, “Atticus,” written and directed by Steve Wimberly, travels a course of corruption, much of which it lays at the feet of Riley, Republican operative Karl Rove, Billy and Leura Canary and Eric Holder.

It features interviews with some of the state’s most powerful and well-known political players. And there’s even an appearance by the most famous crooked lobbyist in DC, Jack Abramoff, who recounts in detail how he and his Choctaw Indian pals forked out $20 million to beat back a lottery and to get rid of Siegelman.

By the end, you walk away with two thoughts: Alabama politics is dirtier than I imagined (which is saying something) and Don Siegelman shouldn’t have been indicted, much less convicted.

It is well worth your time, and your anger.

For those who might want to conduct in-depth research -- either before or after watching the film -- we recommend our five-part series, "The Cheating of Don Siegelman." It is an extensive examination of the role judicial corruption -- at both the trial and appellate level -- played in the Siegelman debacle. From that series:

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals cheated former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman in multiple ways. The most glaring example involves the statute of limitations, so we will start there.

It's undisputed that the government was tardy in bringing bribery charges against Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy.

All of the activity that constituted the alleged bribery took place in summer 1999. But the government's original indictment was dated May 17, 2005. That's almost one full year past the five-year statute of limitations.

Even if Siegelman and Scrushy had committed the worst sort of bribery--and the facts and the law show that they didn't commit bribery at all--the government missed the boat by a long shot.

Below is the film's trailer:

Karl Rove Gets Testy in Tampa--Plus More Bits and Pieces From the Intersection of Law and Politics

Karl Rove at RNC breakfast

Updates on Karl Rove, Don Siegelman, Whataburger, and more . . .

Karl Rove went loopy at a Republican National Convention (RNC) breakfast yesterday, ranting about Alabama-related issues--even though he was not asked about them.

Craig Unger, of Vanity Fair, was on hand for a Tampa event that featured Rove as guest of honor. Unger, author of the newly released Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove's Secret Kingdom of Power, participated in a question-answer session--and that seemed to set Rove off. Unger describes the scene:

Finally, Rove chose to comment on me, my new book, Boss Rove, and my Vanity Fair piece of the same title, when I rose to ask him if he had taken shots on Fox News at so many of Romney’s rivals—Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and others—in consultation with Fox News chairman Roger Ailes. When I identified myself as being with Vanity Fair, Rove interrupted, “Yes, of course you are. . . . This is where Unger’s gonna flack his book. Go ahead, Unger. Launch away!” 

Calling my book “an entertaining work of fiction,” he said, “Unger’s got an interesting book: I’m responsible for the murder of Mike Connell,” Rove’s computer guru who died in a 2008 plane crash and was said to be knowledgeable about allegations of electoral fraud in Ohio in 2004.

Unger took issue with Rove's characterization of the book, and that seemed to turn Rove's attention to Alabama--for some unknown reason. Rove fired back about Connell and took a clear shot at Jill Simpson, the Rainsville attorney and former GOP operative who was a key whistleblower in the Siegelman case:

“It’s very artfully close to saying that,” Rove said (about Connell). “He also depends upon a nut . . . who claims that I personally got her to investigate Governor Siegelman of Alabama,” Rove continued, referring to Democrat Don Siegelman, who was convicted of campaign violations in a prosecution that many Democrats believe was politically motivated.

Without uttering her name, Rove refers to Simpson as a "nut." But he fails to mention that she testified under oath before Congress--something Rove did not do--regarding her participation in a conference call that included discussions about setting up Siegelman for a political prosecution. And we have yet to see anyone successfully shoot holes in Simpson's testimony--although a number of folks have tried.

Don Siegelman Will Be Sent to Oakdale, Louisiana
Former governor Don Siegelman has received noticed that he will be sent to a prison in Oakdale, Louisiana, upon reporting to federal custody on September 11. Pam Miles, who operates a political listserv from Huntsville, Alabama, issued a press release yesterday about Siegelman's assignment. Miles' release was titled "This Is Pure Meanness," and she states:

On August 3rd at resentencing Judge Fuller granted a motion for Don to self-report and said that he would request that the BOP place Don at a facility “as near Alabama as he can be designated.” 

While Talladega is only 49 miles away and Maxwell Air Force base only 97 miles Judge Fuller must have thought that Don’s enthusiastic supporters like me would be viewed as way too much of a distraction if Don were in Alabama. 

Pensacola, however, is only 251 miles away, about a 4 and ½ hour drive for Don’s wife, Lori. 

But oh no, apparently even Pensacola is too near Alabama for the Judge, because Don just received notice that he is assigned to Oakdale, Louisiana, a 17-18 hour, 900+ mile round trip.

What kind of hardship is this on Siegelman's family? Miles provides insight, and she also touches on the unlawful outcome in the Siegelman prosecution:

As you may remember Lori, Don’s wife, lost an eye in a horrific automobile accident with a drunk driver in 1984. She would have difficulty driving the 17-18 hour, 900+ mile round trip to Oakdale and back. It would be very dangerous and nearly impossible for her to drive it alone. 

This is nothing but punitive. It is outrageous that the Judge is sending Don to prison at all for something that wasn’t a crime. It’s never been a crime to appoint a contributor to something. Where do Ambassadors come from? From people who raise money for whomever is elected president!

If it was not for Richard Scrushy being the contributor and for the government pressuring Nick Bailey who was facing 40 to 100 years in prison to lie there would not have been a conviction. 

The conviction makes me sick, the extreme sentence makes me sick, and putting Don as far from his family and friends AS POSSIBLE . . . MAKES ME ANGRY.

Texas Monthly Shines Light on Whataburger's Battle With Debt Collector 
Long recognized as one of the best magazines in the country, Texas Monthly (TM) has weighed in on Whataburger's efforts to stand up for an employee who was the target of unlawful harassment from a debt collector.

We reported on the Whataburger story over the weekend, and I was pleased to learn that Texas Monthly cited our work in its blog post yesterday. That puts Legal Schnauzer in some mighty fine journalistic company. From "What An Employer!" a piece by TM reporter Jason Cohen:

At Open Salon, Roger Shuler, who also writes the Legal Schnauzer blog, openly applauded Whataburger’s actions: 

If you are an everyday American consumer and get a hankering for fast food, you might want to consider a run to your local Whataburger. The Texas-based company deserves your support for its willingness to stand up to one of the biggest bullies in the debt-collection industry. In fact, this debt collector is even bigger than most Americans realize because, unbeknownst to many, it is owned by a banking behemoth. 

Shuler, who had his own personal experience with NCO, goes on to explain NCO’s ties to JP Morgan Chase. He concluded, “That means Whataburger, on behalf of an employee, is taking on the largest private corporation in the world. I know who I will be rooting for in that fight.”

Let's hope TM continues to follow this story. Legal Schnauzer definitely will be on it.

Honesty Will Not Be Tolerated In the U.S. Department of Justice
Jesselyn Radack apparently was naive when she graduated from Yale School of Law and took a job with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in 1995. How naive was Radack? She actually thought her superiors at DOJ would take it seriously when she raised questions regarding abuses of due process.

How did her superiors react to her concerns? They tried to ruin her career, and Radack lays it out in a new book titled Traitor: The Whistleblower and the "American Taliban." Radack will discuss her experiences when she appears on Andrew Kreig's My Technology Lawyer (MTL) Washington Update radio show at noon (EDT) Thursday, August 30. You can listen to the interview live at the MTL Web site.

To what depths has the DOJ fallen since George W. Bush became president in 2000. Kreig provides disturbing insights in an article about the Radack book:

In 1995, a brilliant, newly minted Yale Law School graduate named Jesselyn Radack began work at the U.S. Justice Department to fulfill her dream of public service. Six years after becoming an ethics adviser in the headquarters of the 100,000-employee department, she found herself a pariah after suggesting that government attorneys should not provide false information to the courts in a federal terrorism prosecution. . . . 

"The Justice Department forced me out of my job" she writes, "placed me under criminal investigation, got me fired from my next job in the private sector, reported me to the state bars in which I'm licensed as an attorney, and put me on the 'no fly list.'" 

Her offense? She believed, erroneously as it turned out, that the Department would not want to use illegally obtained evidence in its prosecution of John Walker Lindh, an American convert to Islam. He had been imprisoned by Afghan warlords in November 2001 soon after the U.S.-led NATO invasion of the country after 9/11.

Yes, the Bush DOJ viciously attacked a government lawyer for suggesting that the department might want to abide by the rule of law. Writes Kreig:

Radack advised against further federal interrogation of Lindh without a lawyer present because his parents had retained counsel. Later, she blew the whistle when she learned that the department destroyed evidence of her advice, and then withheld the evidence from a Virginia federal court, where Lindh faced charges of murder and treason in a high-profile prosecution helping inflame the public in the earliest stages of the war. 

Radack's gripping tale describes a culture clash at the Justice Department between due process advocates and conviction-hungry zealots. The story has implications far beyond the Lindh case or indeed any of the terror cases. Readers of the Justice Integrity Project's site know of documented prosecution misconduct in criminal and civil cases in other cases, including the federal frame-up of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman in Alabama.

Mississippi Judge Tosses Convictions In a Case That Sounds Familiar
A federal judge in Mississippi has overturned several convictions in a corruption prosecution that sounds an awful lot like the Don Siegelman case in Alabama.

U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers threw out convictions against Lee Garner and Ray Shoemaker, who had been convicted on a kickback-bribery scheme involving a medical center in Batesville, Mississippi. The key government witness was a man named David Chandler. Reports Patsy Brumfield, of the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal:

Thursday, Senior U.S. District Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr. threw out all four guilty verdicts against Garner and two against Shoemaker alleging a conspiracy to profit from beefed-up business for Garner. 

Garner was accused of an illegal agreement for Chandler to receive $5 per nursing hour Garner was billed in exchange for Chandler's influence to ensure it was paid in a timely manner. 

Garner's side insisted it was nothing more than a business deal, while the government claimed it was a bribe that padded Garner's fees to the hospital.

In his ruling last week, Judge Biggers ruled against the prosecution on that issue. And he didn't stop there, going on to scrutinize Chandler's testimony:

The government also claimed Garner offered Shoemaker $25,000 to influence additional nursing services, and the jury agreed. 

But Biggers threw that verdict out, saying Chandler never heard any such conversation between the men and no other evidence was introduced to prove it.

In the Siegelman case, chief prosecution witness Nick Bailey hinted at an illegal quid pro quo in his testimony, but evidence showed that he never heard any such conversation between Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy.

Do federal judges have one standard for bribery in Mississippi and another one in Alabama? It sure looks that way.

Rove Deal Is A Raw Deal For Justice

After hearing that former White House advisor Karl Rove is set to answer questions before a congressional committee about the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, many progressives might be tempted to shout, "Hallelujah!"

But here's a word of caution from our justice team at Legal Schnauzer: Not so fast.

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday evening that it had reached an agreement for Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to testify about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. News reports indicate the testimony also is expected to cover the Siegelman case, the best known of several apparent political prosecutions under the Bush Department of Justice.

Rove and Miers are to sit for transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury, with the committee reserving the right to seek public testimony. The agreement also states that invocations of official privileges will be limited.

All of that sounds good, right? Well, we're not so sure.

For one, why is the Siegelman case the only political prosecution on the agenda? There appear to be many others, perhaps most notably the case of Mississippi attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. That is the only documented case where the Bush prosecutor--Dunn Lampton--was on a list to be fired but was removed when he pursued a specific prosecution.

For another, news reports indicate that the Obama White House was deeply involved in negotiations for the Rove testimony. And White House Counsel Gregory Craig apparently represented the Obama camp. A New York Times report states that Craig sent House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers a letter saying, "President Obama is pleased that the parties have agreed to resolve this matter amicably."

But is Craig committed to seeing that former Bush officials are held accountable for politicizing the Justice Department? News out of Alabama this week indicates that Craig might be more interested in protecting Rove than in seeing that justice is done.

Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, a GOP whistleblower in the Siegelman case, says Craig has a conflict in matters involving Rove and perhaps other former Bush officials. In a letter dated February 22, 2009, Simpson's attorney, Priscilla Black Duncan, asked Craig to step down from all matters involving the Bush administration.

As justification for this request, the letter states:

* Craig represented Rove in a recent book deal;

* Emmet Flood, Craig's former close associate and mentor, is representing the Bush administration on executive-privilege issues in a case involving the U.S. attorneys firings;

* Craig was in contact with Jill Simpson on the pretense of representing her regarding her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, but declined representation only after hearing her entire case against Rove.

In the letter, Duncan states that Craig had a duty to disclose his relationship with Rove to Simpson, and he has a duty now to disclose with whom he shared information gleaned from his discussions with Simpson.

In short, Simpson alleges that Craig violated multiple rules of professional conduct for lawyers. These are the kinds of violations that, if confirmed, could get a lawyer in serious trouble. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I suspect disbarment could be on the table for Mr. Craig if he indeed took privileged information from Ms. Simpson and disclosed it to Karl Rove or others.

So is the Rove deal a step forward for justice? I don't think so. And that's because I smell a foul odor coming from the Obama White House. And it seems to be coming from the vicinity of Gregory Craig.

As we have stated before here at Legal Schnauzer, I suspect the Obama presidency could go down in flames if he does not "get it right" on justice issues. The Bill Clinton administration chose to give corrupt Republicans a free pass and lived to regret it. With the help of Gregory Craig, Obama appears to be headed down the same slippery slope.

Does Obama need to make a change in his White House counsel? I would say the answer is yes, and that's because I've read the complete Jill Simpson letter. I invite Legal Schnauzer readers to do the same.

Here is the complete Simpson letter to Mr. Craig, as first reported by Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork New-Journal. The letter includes intriguing information about a number of Alabama GOP luminaries, including Governor Bob Riley and his son Rob, U.S. Senator Richard Shelby, and U.S. Judge Mark Fuller (the judge in the Siegelman case):

Hon. Greg Craig
Office of the White House Counsel
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C. 20500

February 22, 2009

RE: Your position regarding advising the President on the pending testimony of Karl Rove

Dear Attorney Craig:
I represent Dana Jill Simpson, an attorney in Rainsville, Alabama, who testified before Congress in September 2007, regarding Karl Rove’s involvement in the U.S. Justice Department prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman.

She is very concerned that you have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 , 1.7 and 1.10, while citing 1.9 to decline representation. She is equally concerned about the person or persons to whom you have divulged her confidential information. Your recent efforts on the part of negotiating a settlement between Congress and Karl Rove have been noted, as well as your efforts to delay matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals, regarding Rove and other Bush administration officers claiming executive privilege.

For this reason, she is asking that you step down from your position as White House Counsel, at least in all matters dealing with the Bush administration. Further, she is asking that you furnish her with a list of each and every person with whom you have communicated regarding this matter; that is, Miss Simpson’s affidavit, testimony, knowledge, research and any other matters touching or information furnished by Miss Simpson.
In recapping the events linking you and Miss Simpson:

1.) Upon information and belief, Gov. Don Siegelman or his agent made the direct call to you at your law firm, Williams & Connolly, soliciting your pro bono representation of Ms. Simpson, with regard to her affidavit about Karl Rove’s involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution.

2.) According to Ms. Simpson, you called her up to four times on or about March 16-17, 2007, and you faxed her your resume.

3.) She initially asked, “Before we really start this, do you have any contacts with George Bush, Karl Rove, Don Siegelman or Bob Riley?”

4.) You indicated you did not and said, “Tell me who this is about.”

5.) Your initial conversation with Ms. Simpson lasted about 10 to 15 minutes.

6.) In three conversations of nearly two hours, you extracted particular details of her involvement, and you asked her specifically about the length of time and character of her contact with Karl Rove, the extent of her work with the GOP and her knowledge of U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller’s owner-interest in Doss Aviation, a major federal contractor, and matters dealing with lobbyist G. Stewart Hall’s then-Federalist Group and the steering of contracts to Fuller’s company and companies related to Gov. Bob Riley’s son, Rob Riley.

7.) After this extensive questioning, which included another session for the questions you had formulated, you announced that you couldn't represent her because you had represented Sen. Richard Shelby during the 2004-2005 investigations of his alleged national security leaks.

8.) Ms. Simpson says that you related to her that Sen. Shelby had told you “ in confidence” that he “owned and controlled Doss Aviation out of the federal courthouse in Montgomery,” and that Doss Aviation’s, 1 Church Street, mail was delivered to Shelby’s Senate office, even before Fuller was appointed judge. You told her that you “didn’t really like” Shelby, that the Doss connection had not been discovered during the previous hearing, but that, “It will come up, if you really go into it.”

9.) You failed to mention to Miss Simpson, however, that you were a friend of Karl Rove, had shared drinks with Karl Rove, that your law firm, Williams & Connolly, was representing Vice President Cheney on Scooter Libby’s role in the Valerie Plame case in which Rove was involved; that your firm has advised the White House not to turn over GOP emails regarding the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. Nor did you disclose your firm’s involvement in defending Iran-Contra figures, which you knew or should have known play a key role in the current military contracts routed to Doss Aviation.

Now, I understand your firm is handling Karl Rove’s book deal. Currently, your former close associate and mentor, Emmet Flood is representing former President Bush in executive privilege matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals with regard to political firings of U.S. Attorneys who failed to act on orders to prosecute Democrats prior to elections – matters in which you are directly involved in your role as President Obama’s White House Counsel.

You had a duty to disclose your relationship with Rove to Miss Simpson before she revealed the details of her involvement, because you knew from initial contacts that you had a conflict. You have a duty now to turn over any material relating to disclosure of that information as well as to allocute to whom you passed the knowledge. She also inquires whether you or anyone to you contacted is responsible for recommending legal services from Washington attorney David Laufman, also known as “Bush’s Cleaner,” or Montgomery Republican Tommy Gallion, who after months of intensive discussions with Ms. Simpson, indicated he was in regular contact with President Bush on her matter.

Ms. Simpson asks that you withdraw from any representation of the President on these matters due to your conflicts and those of Williams & Connolly in this area. If you respect the legal Code of Professional Conduct, you must take action to remedy the damage you have done to Ms. Simpson, Mr. Shelby and the legal profession.

We would appreciate an answer no later than three business days.

Sincerely,

Priscilla Black Duncan

Attorney for Jill Simpson

Montgomery theatre fills to capacity for screening of Don Siegelman documentary, as former governor puts final touches on a book about his political prosecution

A capacity crowd of more than 1,000 people turned out for a screening in Montgomery yesterday of Atticus v. The Architect, a documentary about the political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. According to a recent article at Smashing Interviews, the public soon might be able to read a book about the case, written by Siegelman while he was in federal prison. Current Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions, it appears, will be cast as one of many villains in the story.

The documentary originally was set to be shown at the Capri Theatre in Montgomery. But former federal prosecutor Leura Canary, who helped ramrod the Siegelman case, serves on the Capri's board of directors and objected to the screening. The board voted to renege on its agreement to rent the theater for a group to show the Siegelman film.

With assistance from Alabama Political Reporter, the screening was rescheduled for yesterday afternoon at the Davis Theatre, on the campus of Troy University in downtown Montgomery. The Davis, with a listed capacity of 1,200, is nicer and significantly larger than the Capri (cap., 700). Based on a video posted yesterday at the Don Siegelman Film Facebook page, the Davis almost was filled before yesterday's 3 p.m. showing.

Siegelman spoke after the screening, marking his first public appearance in Montgomery since his release from prison in February.

A report at al.com said the theatre was filled for the screening, including some big names in Alabama  politics:

According to tweets from Brian Lyman of The Montgomery Advertiser, VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor, HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy, Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill and State Auditor Jim Zeigler are among those in attendance.

All of that should whet the appetite for those who would like to dive into a book about the Siegelman case -- and one is on the horizon. Marc and Melissa Parker, of Calera, publish Smashing Interviews (SI), and this is from their recent discussion with Siegelman. (Note: SI is a cool Web site, which goes well beyond politics and Alabama; The most recent interview is with Beach Boys legendary songwriter Brian Wilson. But back to Don Siegelman.)

Melissa Parker (Smashing Interviews Magazine): Did you begin writing your book while you were at Oakdale prison?

Don Siegelman: I did. I started writing actually in 2007 right after I got settled at Oakdale. I sent letters to a couple of friends and asked them to give me their thoughts, and they were responsive, I think one to humor me and the other to encourage me. Al Gore sent me to his New York agent in 2008, and I’ve had conversations with another agent on the west coast years ago, and he renewed contact after I got out.

But at that time, I submitted the first chapter and the synopsis of the other chapters that I had in mind and my general pitch as to why it should be published. I really wanted to write the book myself, and I didn’t want a ghost writer, so that propelled me to just keep writing while I was in prison and have everything pretty much on paper when I got out.

The book apparently will portray Jeff Sessions as the slimy sewer rate that he is:

Melissa Parker (Smashing Interviews Magazine): Was it the FBI that brought charges against you?

Don Siegelman: It was not the FBI that brings the charges against me. It was retired FBI agents who worked for Sessions in Mobile who were hired by the Attorney General’s office as contract employees initially. But it was those employees, those retired FBI agents of Sessions, who worked constantly for nearly five years doing nothing but trying to build a case against me, first in 2004 which failed, and then again in 2006.

That suggests Sessions, while serving as U.S. senator, actively was involved in trying to prosecute Siegelman -- apparently with the assistance of Sessions protege and current U.S. Judge, Bill Pryor. Is that what a U.S. senator is supposed to be doing? Was Sessions using his office for political gain, and was Pryor helping him?

Siegelman also provides insight on Nick Bailey, the former aide who wound up being the government's chief witness against him:

Melissa Parker (Smashing Interviews Magazine): And Bailey spent time in prison on bribery-related charges and was released in 2008.

Don Siegelman: Well, he had gotten himself into substantial debt and mortgaged his mother’s farm to invest in the cattle futures. All of this came out at trial, that he had pocketed $200,000 from different people, committed a number of felonies all with serious federal consequences, so he could easily have been sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

Melissa Parker (Smashing Interviews Magazine): So Bailey made a deal?

Don Siegelman: This doesn’t come out in court. It comes out on 60 Minutes on February 4, 2008, that he was interviewed over 70 times and made to write and re-write his testimony over and over until he got his story the way the prosecutors wanted it. He did that in exchange for a commitment that they would recommend no time in prison, and that’s what they did.

Finally, Siegelman shines light on Karl Rove and the cavalcade of GOP crooks who made the political prosecution a reality:

Don Siegelman: We’ve kind of discussed the links to Karl Rove, but some of them we have missed. In 1999, I’m sworn in as governor. In less than two months, Karl Rove’s client, State Attorney General Bill Pryor, starts a Medicaid fraud investigation, which led eventually to a trial in 2004 where Judge U. W. Clemon said it was the most unfounded criminal case over which he has presided in his nearly 30 years on the bench.

Karl Rove’s client comes back into play in 2002 when Bill Pryor stops my hand recount, which would have proven one way or the other whether I won the race or whether there was electronic vote fraud. He seized the ballots and the returns and those ballots and returns have never been seen or counted since. Pryor certified them illegally two days before Alabama law allows for certification after which he was appointed to the federal bench in Atlanta on the Eleventh Circuit through which my appeals have to go. . . .

In 2002, it was Karl Rove’s client, Bill Pryor, who openly participated in stealing the election. Two other people were given credit for stealing the election. One was Rove’s employee, a woman named Kitty McCullough who later married and changed her name to Kelly Kimbrough and a guy named Dan Gans who claimed credit on his website. Dan Gans, immediately after the election was stolen, went to work for a Tom DeLay/Jack Abramoff related lobbying firm called the Alexander Group. So to answer the question about the political operatives, the players were substantial, and there were substantial ties leading to Rove, leading to the White House and going directly, of course, to Abramoff, Ralph Reed, (Michael) Scanlon and (Grover) Norquist.

Karl Rove's Bisexual Affair Might Have Sparked His Bizarre Rant on Fox News

Greta Van Susteren and Karl Rove

Karl Rove is having a bisexual affair with the president of a conservative bloggers' group, and concern about being outed sparked Rove's falsehood-filled diatribe last week on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News program.

Rove's lover is Ali Akbar, president of the National Bloggers Club, an umbrella group that grew from the activism of the late right-wing publisher and pundit Andrew Breitbart. A left-leaning Web site called Breitbart Unmasked recently disclosed that Akbar has a criminal record that includes convictions for credit-card fraud, theft, and burglary.

The stunning allegations about Rove and Akbar are included in a letter sent yesterday from Alabama attorney Dana Jill Simpson to Robert Bauer, counsel for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign. The letter also includes an appeal for a presidential pardon on behalf of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Rove, appearing with Van Susteren on the June 20 edition of On the Record, took a question about the tax-exempt status of certain PACs and turned it into an attack on Simpson, Bauer, and Siegelman--who was the target of perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in U.S. history.

Simpson, a former GOP operative, is best known as a whistleblower in the Siegelman case. She has stated under oath and testified before Congress that she participated in a telephone conference call with prominent Alabama Republicans who discussed plans to bring bogus criminal charges against Siegelman, apparently with Rove's approval.

Rove told Van Susteren that Bauer represented Simpson in her 2007 testimony before Congress and that Simpson did not testify under oath. It's a matter of public record that Simpson made sworn statements about the Siegelman prosecution on multiple occasions. And Simpson included in her letter to Bauer yesterday an affidavit stating that he has never represented her, and the two have never met. (See the affidavit and letter at the end of this post.) Bauer has sent a letter to Rove demanding a retraction, according to a report in Huffington Post.

Ali Akbar

Why would Rove become so wildly disengaged from the truth, on a national television program where he was asked a question that had nothing to do with Jill Simpson? The Alabama lawyer says in her letter to Bauer that Rove became unhinged because he knew she had damaging information about his personal life--and it soon might become public knowledge.

At the heart of Rove's discomfort is his relationship with Ali Akbar. And how did that come to light? Simpson spells it out in her letter to Bauer:

About a week and a half ago, I was contacted by a political operative on the left who gave me a copy of Ali Akbar's advertisement on an adult website. This advertisement suggested that the National Bloggers Club President, Mr. Akbar, was looking for bisexual sex with men who were Republican, political, and loved to discuss politics and philosophy and just wanted to hang out and chill with them.

Simpson has an e-mail list on which she periodically shares inside information on politics and international affairs. The Akbar ad became a subject for discussion on the list. Andrew Kreig, of the D.C.-based Justice-Integrity Project, briefly referenced the Akbar angle in a major piece about Rove's statements on the Van Susteren show. Kreig did not mention Akbar by name, but he did write the following:

In a similar vein, Rove critics active in the blogosphere have been claiming over the past week that one of Rove's colleagues is an ex-con who might be outed soon in a sex scandal. This is part of the ongoing back-and-forth war of nerves that political activists wage continually against one another, with lawsuits and claims of outrage by each side. Among the latter are GOP members of Congress seeking Justice Department prosecutions of liberal opponents. 

In this context, it made sense for Rove to deflect attacks by claiming to Fox listeners that he has been cleared from any suspicions by previous investigations and that critics are partisans allied unfairly against him.

In her letter to Bauer, Simpson says she took the Akbar ad and used it to unearth information about his ties to powerful Republicans. One of those, the letter suggests, is Rove:

I took [the information] back to my blogging group and showed them that Karl had gotten himself a new friend from the information and evidence I had received and that this guy was alleged to be the possible new boy wonder and lover of Karl Rove.

Simpson tells Bauer that she has no concerns about Rove's sexual preferences, but she is alarmed about his multiple false statements on Fox News:

It is believed by many of us that Karl thought we were going to use this for the benefit of President Obama, which was never the case. We do not care if [Rove] is bisexual or not and have many times ignored information that was given to us that suggested that he is. In fact, we find nothing wrong with being bisexual, as it means people just love both sexes at the same time. All of us are LBGTQ supporters, so we elected to not out this information on him. However, I think this is why he went berserk on national TV on Fox Network and said that I am a liar and have disappeared. He also lied when he said I had never testified under oath, as I have. It is Mr. Rove who insisted on executive privilege so as to not have to testify under oath about the Siegelman case.

Simpson states that something positive could come from Rove's appearance on the Van Susteren program:

With all that said, I am very grateful that Mr. Rove was hung up about having his alleged bisexuality possibly released that he pointed out on National TV, not once but twice, that you are a man who can possibly get things done in the Obama Administration. For that reason I am asking you to please consider joining us . . . [in] asking President Obama to pardon Don Siegelman. As you may recall, I was the individual that Karl Rove asked to follow Don Siegelman to a party in Alabama to try to catch him cheating with a gay man in his administration named Nick Bailey.

Does all of this have national implications? Simpson says the answer is yes, and she urges Bauer to take action:

In closing, I just want to say that I am sad you got dragged into this, but I am happy that you now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Karl Rove lied on you, me, and Mr. Siegelman. It is time that someone in the Obama Administration stopped this monster maniac from hurting innocent people--and I hope that man is you.

Simpson Bauer Letter

Karl Rove and the Stench That Follows Him

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

More evidence of that has come forth in recent days.

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

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

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

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

Horton provides more insight:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It Isn't Really About Don Siegelman

Karl Rove's Congressional testimony is receiving prominent display in the news, so perhaps it's a good time to put the larger Department of Justice story in perspective.

Thanks to Rove's history in the state, and the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman, the alleged use of the DOJ for political purposes has deep roots in Alabama. But even here, the public does not seem to grasp the seriousness of the issues involved. Even respected Alabama journalists (yes, there are a few) don't seem to fully "get" the story.

Consider my recent back and forth with Tim Lennox, a fellow Alabama blogger and veteran broadcast journalist. I started things by taking Lennox to task for writing that Rove had denied involvement in the Siegelman case, when Rove in fact did no such thing. Lennox countered with a post that hinted that blinders prevent some folks from seeing the Rove/Siegelman story clearly. I think he meant to include me among the blinders-wearing crowd.

Lennox has been around Alabama journalism for many years. I was a regular listener to his radio show in Birmingham. And I watched his Alabama Public Television program pretty regularly. I think he's a fair and capable guy.

But here is where he and I differ. Lennox has referred a few times in recent posts to "Siegelman supporters." Those apparently are the folks he considers to be wearing blinders--and he seems to put me in that crowd.

Don Siegelman has been in Alabama politics a long time, and I'm sure he has many backers--people who know and like him personally, have campaigned for him, supported him financially, etc. I'm not in that crowd, and I know a number of people who aren't in that crowd--but still think the Bush Justice Department emitted numerous noxious odors and should be examined closely.

Certain Alabama press outlets have created this notion that there is a "cult of personality" surrounding Siegelman, that his dynamic persona causes supporters to overlook his criminal wrongdoing. Lennox seems to buy into this, to some extent.

But Siegelman himself has said, correctly, that the story is not just about him or his case. The Web-based journalists who have done the heavy lifting on this story--Scott Horton, Larisa Alexandrovna, Glynn Wilson, and yours truly--are not "Siegelman supporters." The key whistleblower in the case, Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, wasn't even a member of Siegelman's party.

All of these folks, I feel certain, know the story isn't about Siegelman--or Rove, for that matter. It's about the rule of law. It's about big ideas, summarized in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, such as "equal protection" and "due process." Do those ideas still matter, will they still be enforced?

Tim Lennox is a sharp guy, and I think, in time, he will grasp that the "Siegelman case" really isn't about Siegelman at all. Lennox, I'm guessing, has spent the past several years living in Montgomery, and that's enough to corrode anybody's brain a little bit.

I'm certainly no smarter than Tim Lennox, but I've had a personal experience that helps me understand what the Siegelman case really is about. I know what it's like to walk into a courtroom and, after later studying the relevant law, realize the judge had cheated me repeatedly. In fact, I would love to sit down with Lennox sometime and show him exactly what happened in my case. Perhaps that would help him understand how a corrupt justice system threatens our democracy.

And that's really the issue here. If you study the facts and the law involved, you see that Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy did not commit a crime. That goes also for the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. And yet, four men sit in prison from those two cases, and a fifth (Siegelman) might be heading back to prison.

Did Karl Rove play a role in those cases? That remains unclear. But this much is crystal clear: The judges and the prosecutors in both cases acted corruptly. And that, aside from any role Rove might have played, needs to be investigated.

In the Siegelman case, the alleged criminal activity clearly took place outside the five-year statute of limitations. The judge and prosecutors had to know that, but they barged ahead anyway. The alleged actions of Siegelman and Scrushy do not constitute a crime. But based simply on the statute of limitations, the case should have never gotten off the ground.

In the Minor case, the underlying rulings by two state judges were decided correctly under the law, so there could not possibly be a bribe or fraud. But the judge gave unlawful jury instructions--the same thing happened in the Siegelman case--resulting in convictions.

I've had two brief phone conversations with Don Siegelman. And I've never communicated with Paul Minor at all. I don't think that qualifies me as a "supporter" of either gentleman.

So why have I written several hundred posts about their two cases? I know what it's like to be cheated in court. And after studying the facts and relevant law in their cases, I know that Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and their codefendants were cheated in court.

When people are cheated in court, that means our constitution has been trampled. Judges and prosecutors have a sworn duty to uphold and apply the law correctly--to ensure that "equal protection" and "due process" apply in reality, not just in theory.

That's why the actions of the Bush Justice Department must be investigated--and any wrongdoers must be punished.

That's what this story is really about. And it's way bigger than Don Siegelman--or Karl Rove.

Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman blasts Donald Trump's notion of nominating Bill Pryor to the Supreme Court, calling Pryor "evil and pernicious"

Donald Trump

What does former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman--now residing at a federal prison in Oakdale, Louisiana, because of perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in U.S. history--think of Donald Trump's idea of nominating U.S. Circuit Judge Bill Pryor to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Here are Siegelman's thoughts, straight from the former governor himself. Few people have seen Pryor operate in an up-close-and-personal way as Siegelman has. The mere thought of Pryor being elevated to the nation's highest court apparently makes Alabama's most successful Democrat of the past 25 years want to vomit. It also might cause many Americans to wonder about Donald Trump's sanity.

What's Bill Pryor really like? Here are Don Siegelman's thoughts.


DESCENT INTO THE BOWELS OF INJUSTICE 

by Don E. Siegelman
Governor of Alabama, 1999-2003 

"Evil and Pernicious Jurist To Replace Scalia?" . . .  "Richard Pryor Rather Than Bill Pryor" . . . "Big Tobacco not to blame: Poor People Who Smoke Die Faster, Costing Medicaid Less" . . . "Suppressed The Black Vote" . . .  "Thought the Klan Was A Pretty Good Group Of Guys" . . . "Lock'em Up And Throw Away The Key" . . . "An Unfounded Criminal Case...Totally Without Merit" . . .  "Pro Death Penalty and Pro-Life Stands Could Scare Pope Francis . . ."

An involuntary scream came from my gut causing heads to turn as inmates also heard Bill Pryor's name drip from Trump's lips. Trump on Saturday night's Republican Presidential debate, named perhaps the most evil and pernicious jurist as Trump's choice to replace Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Bill Pryor is on the ultraconservative 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Pryor's background: Slipped in as a recess appointment of Bush. A protege and political client of Karl Rove, a state attorney general linked to Karl Rove's tobacco clients and large corporate interests refused to join in the national suit against Big Tobacco. His reasoning: 

"Poor people who smoke die faster, so they cost Alabama's Medicaid less money." Republican Arizona Attorney General, Grant Woods, later Co-Chair McCain for President, responded publicly saying: "Alabama would be better off with comedian Richard Pryor rather than Bill Pryor as its attorney general." 

Bill Pryor has all the right credentials for a Right Wing nomination: an original member of the Federalist Society, an early supporter of the harshest mandatory minimums for the smallest felonious infractions, Karl Rove's client and political mouthpiece in Alabama, someone who started an investigation against me to damage my chances for reelection (and did). The presiding U.S. District Court Judge, U. W. Clemon, described the Pryor instigated prosecution as "the most unfounded criminal case over which I have presided in my entire judicial career (some 30 years)...totally without merit."[see letter to Eric Holder, May 9, 2009, by Judge U.W. Clemon]. The Department of Justice has confirmed in a letter to the Chairman of the House Judiciary committee that Pryor's lead prosecutor "in charge of the Siegelman prosecution communicated directly with the campaign manager of Mr. Siegelman's gubernatorial opponent” and "several" other officials acted improperly.[see report of “Project On Governmental Oversight", December 14, 2014] 

Bill Pryor

Yet, Pryor is most frightening because of his closeness to: Karl Rove and Jeffrey Beauregard Session. 

Pryor is from Mobile and is a close friend and protégé of Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions. Sessions was a racist U.S. Attorney, using his position to suppress the black vote by getting his agents to round up Alabama "Black Belt" African American political leaders and threatening them with prison if they ever crossed the line in soliciting absentee votes. Just to show he meant business, he prosecuted two older ladies (one a 72 year old retired school teacher, and a dear friend of mine) and finger printed and photographed others. It worked. 

In 1994, Session beat out the Democratic nominee to become Alabama's radical Attorney General using his new position to launch him into the U.S. Senate in 1996. Pryor was Sessions's top deputy. Earlier when Sessions was making a play to be a federal judge himself, Senator Ted Kennedy forced Sessions to admit under oath, on the record in a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, that Sessions had said: 

"I always thought the Klan was a pretty good group of guys . . . until I learned they smoked pot." [see U.S. Senate Judiciary Hearing] 

Sessions also had a penchant for prosecuting Democratic officeholders, white or black. 

Recently, Mr. Donald Trump went to Mobile, Alabama, where he proudly cuddled Sessions on camera before a crowd of exuberant voters. Then he announced that Sessions's advisor, would become Trump for President "Senior Policy Advisor". Now, we hear in the most recent debate from Trump's own mouth that he has found the perfect possible replacement for Justice Scalia: 

Bill Pryor, Session's creation, Karl Rove's client, a protector of corporate interests, a man who puts political prosecutions ahead of the truth and justice, an outlaw who orchestrated illegally certifying bogus elections results to ensure that Karl Rove's and Jack Abramoff's candidate for governor won in 2002, a Right Wing, "lock'em up and throw away the key" blinded, fanatical anti-Roe v. Wade pro-life, pro-death penalty Catholic. He is still not an equal to fill Antonin Scalia's shoes who exclaimed in the Sorich case in 2012: 

"It is simply not fair to prosecute someone for a crime that has not been defined until the judicial decision that sends him to jail." 

Bill Pryor's bent mind could never comprehend such a judicious decision seeking true justice. Pryor's lust to put people in prison has no bounds. Pryor's criminal justice logic is itself a unique work of injustice. 

The real danger is that Pryor is young and is just beginning his descent into the bowels of partisan injustice.

Footnote: 

In the interest of full disclosure, Bill Pryor, Karl Rove's client, as Alabama's newly elected Attorney General, started an investigation of me on March 19, 1999, just days after I was sworn in as governor in January, 1999. He then joined with the Bush U.S. Attorney to prosecute me, while the U.S. Attorney's husband was running my opponent's campaign. Despite an all out offensive by Karl Rove and the Pryor smear campaign, I won but only to wake up the next morning to find out that enough votes had been stolen to swing the election to the Rove- Abramoff backed candidate. (See Mark Crispin Miller's book: "Loser Take All") When I asked for a hand recount, Bill Pryor threatened anyone who touched the ballots with jail, then surreptitiously took the bogus results to Montgomery and certified them two full days before Alabama law allowed, thus ending my ability to get a recount. 

Don Siegelman

After my Republican opponent was sworn in, Bill Pryor was nominated and confirmed to a seat on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals during a Congressional recess, after which U.S. Senator Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions stated publicly and on the record: 

"We would have moved faster and gotten Pryor on the bench earlier but we needed a Republican governor in place first." 

The 11th Circuit is the court through which all my appeals had to first be screened. While Pryor did not directly participate, his coffee break and cocktail conversations no doubt poisoned the well for my appeals. At an 11th Circuit Court Judicial Conference for all U.S. District Court and 11th Circuit court judges, a prominent Atlanta attorney, Buddy Darden, overheard Judge Pryor telling those within listening distance his opinion about me. Mr. Darden told me he had pulled Judge Pryor aside and asked about the ethics of his statements. 

My Republican opponent, Congressman Bob Riley, was hand picked by Michael Scanlon and Jack Abramoff to run against me. In Abramoff's own words, we had to "stop Siegelman...[and my lottery-gaming proposal]...at a cost of approximately $20,000,000 to the tribe" [The Mississippi Choctaw Indian casinos to protect their gambling monopoly in the Southeast. See pages 187-194 of Abramoff's book, "Capitol Punishment".] 

Millions of Indian casino dollars were illegally laundered into Alabama to defeat me by Rove and Abramoff's friends, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist, according to "Capitol Punishment" and the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs report:"Gimmie Five", authored by U. S. Senator John McCain. 

This Indian casino money flowing into my opponent's campaign was never investigated. The Rove generated prosecution only investigated a single contribution in support of my proposed ballot initiative. One that would have sent all Alabama high school graduates to college for free, but instead sent me to prison for 88 months.