Why Did Obama Administration Ask Judge To Increase Gov. Siegelman's Prison Sentence?

[red dog 1]

Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2013, 03:56 PM - Edit history (10)

From:
Daily Kos
June 5, 2012
By Ralph Lopez

According to Andrew Kreig who writes at OpEdNews.com, Siegelman, who was facing a 7 year sentence, is now serving a 20 year sentence,
"one that Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder pushed for, beyond the 7 years he was originally sentenced to serve."
"In 2009, the Obama Justice Department requested that Judge Fuller sentence Siegelman to 20 more years in prison when his appeals are finished."

Kreig says
"The new administration stood shoulder-to-shoulder with it's Bush predecessors in continuing the frame-up and cover-up."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/05/1097552/-Gov-Don-Siegelman-Facing-20-Years-Obama-Pushes-For-Long-Sentence/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251292060/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023951944/


For the many DUers who are unhappy with the above story from OpEdNews by Andrew Kreig, here are some comments from Thom Hartmann and Governor Siegelman himself obtained from an interview he did with Thom Hartmann in 2009.

Siegelman:
"I was surprised that the Obama administration is now opposing my position in the U.S. Supreme Court"
Hartmann:
"Yeah, well this is what has me completely baffled...I don't get it."
Siegelman:
"Well, it doesn't baffle me because with all due respect to the President and to Eric Holder,
very little substantive change has taken place within DOJ...The very same people who approved my prosecution, the very same people who pushed my prosecution, those motivated to see me prosecuted, at the top level of the Dept. of Justice, are still there...They are still in power."
Hartmann:
"I don't understand why when Barack Obama became President of the United States and Eric Holder became Attorney general, they did not ask for the resignations of these Bush holdovers who are still in office...I mean the woman who prosecuted, who initiated the prosecution against you, whose husband was the campaign manager of your opponent and Karl Rove's best friend since college, she, Laura Canary, she's still a Federal Prosecutor down there, who's still coming after you."


I was unable to find a direct link to this Thom Hartmann interview with Gov. Siegelman from December 25, 2009, however, you can get there by going to:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/community/
and scrolling down on the left side under "Recent Blog Posts" & click on:
GOV. SIEGELMAN: AN INNOCENT DEMOCRAT, IS STILL IN PRISON..CAN THOM HELP GET HIM RELEASED?
This will bring you to the above titled blog posted yesterday,
and in the comments section are the links to 3 Thom Hartmann transcripts on the Siegelman case, the last one being his 2009 interview with Gov. Siegelman cited above.

I apologize for not having a direct link to the above referenced 2009 Thom Hartmann interview with Gov. Siegelman, but it simply was not available.

To those DUers who are angry about the OP above from Daily Kos, I ask this question:
Is there ANYTHING contained in the Daily Kos article by Ralph Lopez that is NOT TRUE?
Did Andrew Kreig write anything in his OpEdNews piece that is NOT TRUE?

For the record, I am still a strong supporter of President Barack Obama, and I still hold out hope that he will pardon Gov. Siegelman.
I felt the need to post this because the fact remains that an innocent Democrat is still in prison for merely violating a technicality in the law which was used to "railroad" him by Karl Rove
and United States Attorney Laura Canary, wife of Billy Canary, Karl Rove's best friend, and a political ally of Bill Riley, who defeated Siegelman in 2002,

Don't like the Daily Kos article with it's OpEdNews quotes?
How about Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) questioning Attorney General Eric Holder about the Siegelman case?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014484905/

Is Rep. Cohen an Obama-basher too?
Is Rep. Cohen "trying to slam Obama"?



THE CURIOUS CASE OF DON SIEGELMAN....By Mimi Kennedy of The Huffington Post
(Is she also "trying to slam Obama"?)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mimi-kennedy/don-siegelman-_b_1851909.html/

?

[pscot]

1. Has anyone ever asked DOJ

to explain themselves?

[red dog 1]

4. Last May, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) "Queried Eric Holder About the Siegelman Case"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014484905/

[Coyotl]

51. This thread needs a TOTAL BULLSHIT ALERT at the top.

You have not done your due diligence regarding the facts.
You just link your BS to other BS and flame away with your Obama bashing.

You should be ashamed of yourself. How can you call yourself a Dem?

[Maedhros]

60. About what is the OP misleading us?

Do you have information that contradicts the Daily Kos story?

[sabrina 1]

63. Is the claim that this DOJ is responsibe for Siegelman

facing MORE time now not true?

[questionseverything]

68. potus should of fired all the us attorneys first day

most presidents do so they can put in their own people

when current admin let the "bushies" stay in power i knew we were screwed

[brush]

154. Yes, I read early on in the Obama admin. that the Bushies left moles behind in several

agencies and departments and the Obama admin, unfortunately, didn't ferret them out.

[questionseverything]

156. firing the bushie us attorney would of been fine

but bush also packed the justice department with "regency lawyers",very right wing grads in civil service positions........with civil service jobs i do not think he can get them out

[SidDithers]

72. +1...

but it's par for the course at the new DU.

Sid

[Marr]

82. What part of the claim is untrue?

[Coyotl]

99. If you don't know, where have you been on this issue all this time.

And since when does calling BS shift the burden of proof?

[sabrina 1]

147. I don't know, and I have been following this case since it began so

many years ago now. So could you state what is untrue in the OP?

[Marr]

158. I don't see an answer there, and Jesus-- talk about projection.

You very literally just called a claim bullshit and refuse to back it up.

Explain why that post is bullshit.

[cui bono]

192. See your own post #51 n/t

[Ken Burch]

218. Why are you attacking people just for asking questions?

Just tell us why you think this is bullshit. If you're going to say it is, you have an obligation to say why. Not everybody follows every issue 24-7, y'know.

BTW...do you think the guy DESERVES a longer sentence? It's obvious that the only reason he was convicted was that he was a Democrat who could get elected in Alabama.

[cui bono]

191. So then rebut it. n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

199. Rsther than acting like a seagull

your objections would carry validity if you provided some verifiable facts to counter the OP.

[Blue Owl]

2. WTF?

Meanwhile, Karl Rove still out there doing his criminal best to fuck over this country...

[arthritisR_US]

3. My reaction too!

Bloody Hell!!

[indepat]

5. It was clearly and indubitably the right-wing thingy to do,

just as was the reversal of the late former Senator Ted Stevens' conviction?

[Coyotl]

47. And, if you check the facts, you will find it was a right-winger doing it.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of bashing Obama.

[indepat]

65. I never bash the President and rarely ever bash anything not right wingy.

But to say none of the policies, actions, and people carried over from junior's administration were not right-wing would be a hard sell, because virtually everything junior and his cabal did or espoused were right out of the right wing playbook.

[frylock]

73. why not direct us to those facts?

did the current DOJ headed by Holder lobby for extended incarceration or not?

[Chakab]

127. Who fucking put that RWer in the position to make this decision? It's Obama's choice to have all of

holdovers from the Bush Administration in his government because he's too "non-partisan" to appoint real Liberals to run anything.

The apologists for this bullshit make me sick.

[sabrina 1]

145. Sickening that loyalty to a politician would blind someone to

the incredible injustice of sending an innocent man to prison because of politics. I remember when the mention of Karl Rove evoked outrage all by itself. I thought that was because we Dems cared about justice.

The involvement of Rove in this case should evoke the exact same outrage it did during the Bush years. But now, for some, it's okay to let Rove off the hook.

It make me ill also and we are not alone by any means.

[cui bono]

194. Still no facts from you. n/t

[woo me with science]

6. THIS IS THE CORRUPTION WE FACE.

No more illusions.

[Doremus]

7. A sad fact.

Tom Delay and a host of other repukes stand in testimony of that fact.

[woo me with science]

9. Like a drumbeat...

...the constant defensive propaganda that this is *only* about Republicans...

...even when the TOPIC of the post is outrageous Democratic complicity.

[jsr]

22. No kidding.

[lark]

25. Let me amend to "so called" Democratic complicity

Many Dems are not what they call themselves, the president included. They are moderate Repugs at best, complicit with the 1% corporotocracy, trojan horses. This truly makes me ill. Knew Holder was really bad, but didn't realize he was totally the enemy - except on voting rights.

[George II]

77. That may be the "topic" but it's devoid of fact.

[cui bono]

195. So provide a rebuttal.

You and someone else say that yet fail to present any evidence to the contrary.

Imagine someone who knows nothing about this reads the thread. Do you think you have convinced them of your position?

[George II]

200. It's impossible to provide a rebuttal for something that didn't happen.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. Are we allowed to say that? I think that we're not supposed to notice. Or otherwise have an excuse.

[woo me with science]

27. +1 This man will spend YEARS of his life in a cage

And he is far from the only one being caged, silenced, impoverished, blown to pieces, or thrown into despair as a result of what corporate power has made of this government.

We'd better damned well be able to say it.

[pscot]

118. Why? Why was this done?

I can't understand why the Obama DOJ would go along with this. What is going on? Why?

[Laelth]

178. +1 for the 1st Amendment.

At least we can still speak the truth.

-Laelth

[Puzzledtraveller]

18. Even in the face of such corruption

the ego will defend itself, to insist that it can not be wrong. The powers that be rely on this fact, that noone wants to be wrong, and noone wants to be on a losing team.

[geek tragedy]

36. Since you view this as official corruption, do you think impeachment proceedings

for Holder and Obama are appropriate, based on this year-old Daily Kos diary?

[red dog 1]

59. I do not "think impeachment proceedings for Holder & Obama are appropriate"

I know you were responding to another DUer; but I just wanted to add my 2 cents worth.

As far as "based on this year-old Daily Kos diary",
It may be a year old, but the fact remains that an innocent, popular former Democratic governor of a red state is still languishing in prison for a crime he did not commit; and Obama's DOJ not only has failed to help him get out; they actually joined with Republicans to increase the amount of time he will have to serve.

[geek tragedy]

61. So, you accept everything you read in every Daily Kos diary

you read at 100% face value?

Obama's been trying to replace the US attorney for Alabama, but the two Senators there won't allow it. Wonder why?

[questionseverything]

70. he does not need any1s permission to fire us attorneys

the senate has a role in confirming replacements but no one can stop the potus from firing them

[Laelth]

179. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[sabrina 1]

71. What do you think of the Siegelman Case, considering all

the evidence we now have of the involvement of Rove et al, and what do YOU think should be done about the destruction of, not just the career, an excellent one btw, but of the life of a good Democrat and his wonderful family, or anyone for that matter?

You've never discussed the case at all. You seem more concerned about issues that are marginal to this gross miscarriage of justice.

I'm interested in your opinion of what ought to be done regarding a case about which by now, there is zero doubt was riddled with corruption and revenge and lies and is viewed by almost everyone who has knowledge of it, including Republicans, much of it orchestrated by Karl Rove, as one of the worst and most glaring miscarriages of justice in the recent history of the judicial system?

Or is the removal of everything from a man who was a good man, a great Democrat, not important and we should 'move on' from yet another crime committed by members of the Bush administration??

[geek tragedy]

74. re: Siegelman, first thing I do is pretend he's a Republican

and see how I feel about the facts of the case.

Long story short, the prosecution stinks and was tainted by politics, but Siegelman was probably guilty as charged.

[sabrina 1]

80. Guilty of what?

[geek tragedy]

83. Making an explicit quid pro quo by trading a $500K donation

for an appointment to a state board.

There's obviously an "they all do it" element to this, but there's a legal way to do it (give money first, don't discuss appointment or trade off) and then there's the way Siegelman apparently did it.

[sabrina 1]

84. Could you link to that, that he 'made an explicit quid pro quo'

and what did he get out of it? If there's a 'quid pro quo' there had to be something in it for him, no?

[geek tragedy]

88. $500K donation to his re-election campaign. That's what the conviction was for, nt

[questionseverything]

116. the 500k was to a campaign to encourage the lottery

in his state to fund education

which rove/indian tribes did not want because they ran casinos

[ljm2002]

120. The contribution was to an ISSUES campaign...

...NOT to Siegelman's re-election campaign (the issue in question was a state lottery to fund education). Furthermore, there was never any evidence of a specific promise based on the contribution, the "quid pro quo" required for conviction.

The amicus brief filed by 113 persons (many of them previous attorneys general in several states, from both political parties) states why this conviction was really, really bad (smelly, stinky...):

The thin reed of evidence on which the conviction of Governor Siegelman was based reveals the dangers of the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling. In July 1999 and May 2000, Richard Scrushy donated money to a campaign for a lottery initiative that Governor Siegelman supported. In July 1999, Governor Siegelman reappointed Mr. Scrushy to Alabama’s “CON” Board, just as the three previous governors of Alabama had done. The prosecution presented no evidence of an “explicit” quid pro quo linking Mr. Scrushy’s reappointment to the contributions

(...)

the Eleventh Circuit’s “implicit” quid pro quo standard exposes every government official who acts to the benefit of a contributor, knowing that the contributor desired such an act to take place, to criminal prosecution. Every President of the United States who nominates a contributor to an Ambassadorship could be subject to prosecution. Any United States Senator who publicly endorses a cause advocated by a contributor is at risk. Any Governor or Mayor who appoints a contributor to a board or commission might be faced with a charge of corruption. And, every donor who has ever been the beneficiary of sought-after political actions runs the same threat of being prosecuted. On the unlikely assumption that this would not upend the political fundraising mechanisms inherent in our political system, it would nevertheless give unwarranted latitude to prosecutors in targeting, for whatever reasons, those politicians and contributors whose lives and careers they desire to imperil.

You can read the rest here if you are interested:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/89760651/Former-Attorneys-General-Cert-Amicus.pdf

Bottom line: no personal gain for Siegelman at all, no explicit quid quo pro was even argued much less proven (the court relied on an "implicit" quid pro quo, going directly against the case law they cited).

[red dog 1]

196. + 1

[sabrina 1]

144. I didn't think you knew much about this case. See the responses

above for the correct answer.

This was a corrupt, fake, Karl Rove operation against a Democratic Governor. It would help if people who have not familiarized themselves with the case would not continue to spread false information about it.

This DOJ needs to explain why they fought AGAINST Siegelman's fight for justice and the exposure of the corruption, and the involvement of Karl Rove in the entire corrupt process, while fighting FOR Republican Ted Stevens who actually DID do what he was convicted of, although there was corruption, unnecessary as the facts were clear in that case, in his trial which should have resulted in a NEW TRIAL. Not a total dismissal of the case!

If only we Dems could get a break like that, especially when there was NO CRIME committed!

People are sick to death of Karl Rove et al being a pass no matter how many times he is caught red-handed involved in these corrupt schemes.

They were sick of it in 2008 and elected Dems hoping to put a stop to him and his criminal cohorts. We and Siegelman and his family are entitled to an explanation as to why the obvious, overwhelming evidence of corruption in the Siegelman case was not worth their time, not to mention their recommending MORE TIME in jail than he was originally facing.

This whole case from start to now, and people won't stop demanding not just the overturning of that phony conviction, but compensation for all that Siegelman has lost.

I cannot imagine any decent person turning their heads away from one of the worst cases of injustice in politics in recent times. It will go down in history as such, and so will those who turned a blind eye to it.

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

129. Please provide proof.

I'm waiting - because there is no proof.

Scrushy also got railroaded.

[zeemike]

90. That would imply that politics trumps justice.

And if true, should be a warning to us because when that happens you have Fascism or some other kind of ism that has yet to be labeled.
By the fact that you asked that question shows we are in trouble...it is now, my party right or wrong.

[geek tragedy]

92. the distinction between politics and law is a fuzzy one at best

Justice? Occurs randomly at best.

[zeemike]

93. Well that is the point is it not?

Justice is a random thing depending on which political party you like...so the Achiest thought it was justice to kill the Jews cause the party wanted to, and the party is always right.

And this constitution was set up with three separate branches to insure justice...but that has been squashed and dismembered, and you tell us it is ho hum no big deal... that is just the way it is get used to it.

[geek tragedy]

94. The constitution was not set up to insure justice, not at all.

It was set up to make change difficult and to protect the upper class from popular revolts.

It was set up to create gridlock.

[zeemike]

95. Holey shit, it is right there in the first sentence and you missed it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You do understand that the preamble sets out the purpose of the document don't you?

[geek tragedy]

96. Followed by the part where slaves are 3/5 of a human being, right? nt

[zeemike]

97. That was an amendment to the constitution.

And was not in the original document...and just like Prohibition was wrong.
But we are talking about the justice system not slavery...which was supposed to be a separate branch of the government independent from the other two, and not bound by politics.

[geek tragedy]

98. Derp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

You said the constitution was set up to provide justice. In addition to the 3/5 language, only property-owning men could vote. Does that sound like a government founded on justice?

[former9thward]

104. Your 'facts' are all over the place today.

And none of them correct. The Constitution did not say who could vote. That was up to the states. So your attempted implication that "property-owning men" is in there is BS.

The three fifths compromise did not say AA were 3/5 of a white man. It was demand made by the North so that the South could not get too much representation in Congress by counting slaves. The South wanted slaves to count equally. If that language was not in the Constitution the South would have controlled Congress.

Up thread you claimed AL two Senators were preventing Obama from appointing a U.S. attorney. Where do you get such nonsense? AL has three U.S. Attorneys and they all have been appointed by Obama.

[geek tragedy]

107. Oh, that's right, there was no right to vote back then.

It was up to the states, in which only property-owning men could vote.

You're seriously defending the 3/5 clause? For taxation and representation purposes, slaves were legally treated as 3/5 of a human being. Of course, that's because this justice-oriented constitution still allowed human beings to be property and stripped of all human rights.

I'm sorry--the relevant AL USA was finally confirmed in 2011--so "had been unable" was the correct term. Doesn't change the fact that the Obama appointee wasn't the one who pushed the heavier sentence.

[former9thward]

125. It was an Obama appointee that defended the heavier sentence.

That would be Justice Elena Kagan. She was Solicitor General at the time --- appointed by Obama. She argued against Siegelman at the Supreme Court when he appealed there in 2009.

[geek tragedy]

157. what date were oral arguments? nt

[former9thward]

176. Link to her brief below.

November, 2009. No oral arguments because the US Supreme Court agreed with her brief and refused to take the case.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23440615/Siegelman-Case-Elena-Kagan-Reply-Brief

[sabrina 1]

150. Are you aware that without the Southern states there would be

no US of A and that many of the Northern rebels wanted slavery ENDED but would have lost the support of the South for the Revolution and decided to wait until THEY were free from Britain before addressing what people like John Adams eg, considered to be 'one of the world's worst EVILS'.

Stop glossing over historical facts. We hear excuses all the time for why Obama 'can't push for a National HC System, because he would get NOTHING because of the Republicans'.

The next time I see that excuse from you I will remind you of why slavery wasn't addressed in those early days because you appear to be contradicting yourself on the matter of 'excuses' for why wrongs cannot be corrected.

And your constant slamming of the US Constitution here has been noted. Great ideas have often come from very flawed individuals, or from people who were trapped in the times they lived in. We would appreciate coming to DU and finding Liberal views expressed here not these right wing arguments against the FFs INTENDED to tie Liberals up in knots, yes, we know where they came from. They haven't worked since the first tried them back we Liberals argued that the Iraq was Unconstitutional.

Now, back to the topic of the OP which had nothing to do with this attempt to distract.

A great injustice was done to a Democratic Governor, no justice was expected for him during the Bush occupation of the WH, but once Dems took over, it WAS expected and instead things have only become WORSE for Siegelman. The OP is asking a question all Dems are asking, 'why'???

[zeemike]

110. And perfect is the enemy of the good.

And it does not change the fact that the intent of it was justice...and the structure of government made for an independent judicery...
Your argument seems to be because it was never perfect justice does not matter.

[geek tragedy]

112. I'm saying just because the packaging says justice

doesn't mean that the contents are justice.

That independent judiciary didn't serve Don Siegelman too well, from the looks of things.

[zeemike]

115. The independent judiciary died decades ago.

A slow lingering death, when money became the most important thing in politics...and the corporations could buy themselves a judge...which was one of the fears expressed by the founding fathers.

But that is true of all of the intended goals of the Constituton...just because we say free does not mean we are...and in fact they have adopted the Orwell principle of doublespeak....if you want to pass a law to take away your privacy call it the privacy protection act.

[sabrina 1]

169. Where are you getting this stuff from? Have you read any of the

history, the actual words, discussions, debates between the FFs that led to the forming of this country?

Ever read John Adams' letters to his wife eg? HIS views of a just society?

The Constitution was based on historical law, which most certainly was intended to lead to a more just society for ALL citizens.

I'd love to see where these views with nothing ever to back them up I notice, are coming from. Where do you get your information that leads you to these views?

Do you understand the concept of Habeas Corpus eg?

I seriously am interested in how you came to the conclusion that the Constitution is a sham!

[rhett o rick]

119. What? The prosecution was tainted because he was railroaded. He did

nothing wrong as most of the Attorneys Generals agree. But you think he is "probably guilty as charged."

You either havent read about the case or you are one of those that thinks anyone charged of a crime must be guilty.

[arely staircase]

225. do you no longer support Obama

for the hundred-gazillionth time?

[beerandjesus]

8. This just spoiled my day.

Please Mr. President, I want to believe in you!

[okaawhatever]

16. The editorial (article) isn't correct. Please read the excerpts I posted later in the thread. nt

[BillyRibs]

26. I Know Better than

to Believe in a man or a woman Pol. I believe in an Ideal Pol. If I vote for Him/Her, and they Dare Not live up to My Ideal!? I'll light a Fire up Under their ass till they do! I'll Try My best to Make you a Good Pol whether you like it or not, And to hell with all who oppose my ways.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. Somehow, I think that we need a different Democrat in the White House.

[geek tragedy]

23. And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Ha ha. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. These two agree with you,

or you with them:

[geek tragedy]

35. No, I voted for Obama twice, so more likely

they agree with you.

They, and you, are stuck with Obama as President for another 3+ years.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

43. Sure you did. I believe you.

[geek tragedy]

48. You have every reason to. Given your wish that Obama

would be removed from office, I would think you'd hold that against me

[AnotherMcIntosh]

49. Your false words are your own.

[geek tragedy]

50. You said we need to replace Obama with a different Democrat.

How do you think that would happen?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. 1) I did not say that. 2) There will be an election in 2016.

My words are my own. They don't need to be falsely interpreted by you.

What I expressly said at #10 was

"10. Somehow, I think that we need a different Democrat in the White House."

Why isn't the truth good enough for you?

[geek tragedy]

56. What role do you think Obama had in the decision to prosecute Blagojevich? nt

[Gravitycollapse]

203. I've never understood why people like you think any of this is funny.

There always seems to be that person who points their finger and laughs with schadenfreude. As if you yourself don't give a damn about injustice. You're just here to mock people's sorrow. And, like I said, none of this is funny. It's actually pretty damn shameful.

[geek tragedy]

204. people who cry and fret because Obama is president make me laugh.

Remind me of teapartiers

[Gravitycollapse]

207. You know who reminds me of teapartiers? People who are so politically deluded...

That they can do nothing but point and laugh. No sympathetic consideration. No forethought. Just a gaping mouth with guttural noises vomiting out.

[geek tragedy]

208. kind of like people who gloat when US servicepeople get traumatic brain injuries

or get their limbs blown off.

No, wait, those people are actually disgusting human beings.

[Gravitycollapse]

210. Even after all this time you still can't figure out what I meant.

Not that I'm terribly concerned about what you think of me.

[geek tragedy]

211. Oh, I understood exactly what you meant.

You have deemed US servicepeople to be unworthy of your empathy of compassion because you're too 'progressive' to care about their pain and suffering.

[cui bono]

209. Because Obama.

That's all it is. And it's really very sad.

There's another one in this thread that's worse. Won't even engage in any kind of discussion at all, even posted that they enjoy being an ass (my word, but that's what they are being and they said they enjoyed it). These at the people that MIRT needs to look into. They make this place hateful.

[Gravitycollapse]

212. Certain people have only shut up because of the new 5 hidden posts no posting rule.

It seems a lot of people miraculously toned down their idiocy right after they made the announcement.

[cui bono]

214. Yep. And because the rules are too specific and juries get caught up in the details

there are many posts that are actually disruptive in nature that are left alone.

My feeling is if someone isn't here to actually engage and all they do is taunt, insult and post emoticons they should be shown the door.

[leftstreet]

11. Unbelievable

[Rex]

13. Yet Tom Delay walks around smiling and laughing

all the way to the bank. Justice seems to only be for certain people.

[okaawhatever]

14. I call b.s. on that story. I'll reprint what I posted earlier, but Obama didn't ask for anything.

Even the article says what the title doesn't, that the Obama justice department asked for it not Obama. While that is technically true, it happened shortly after Obama took office and the federal prosecutor(s) who asked for it were Bush holdovers Obama tried to fire.
In reality it was the federal prosecutor(s) who asked for it. That was Laura Canary and Alice Martin. That hearing also took place before Rove testified and before the decision from the appellate court on whether or not to put the case before the entire panel. Eric Holder did not intercede, but the AG's Office of Professional Responsibility was already reviewing the case. I imagine many at that time were waiting for Rove's testimony. Also, in Seigelman's latest appeal, one of the points they are questioning is if the longer sentence wasn't wrong decided to begin with. From the appeal: “Second, in calculating Siegelman’s sentence under the Guidelines, Judge Fuller dramatically increased his offense level by relying on conduct unrelated to the offenses for which Siegelman was convicted," lawyer wrote. One of Siegelman's attorneys for that appeal is former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig.

Obama has been trying to replace Laura Canary as Federal Prosecutor:

Moreover, Laura Canary, the U.S. attorney in Montgomery, remains in office after Alabama Republican senators Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby derailed the Obama administration’s efforts to put a successor in place by lodging objections. While Sessions and Shelby both deny they’re trying to keep Canary in office, the consequence of their serial objections, for which they offer no public explanation, is just that. Both show remarkable concern about the prospect of Canary’s removal and replacement by a new prosecutor unconnected to them

Federal Prosecutors are calling for a 20 year sentence for former Alabama Gov Don Siegelman according to this letter obtained by the AP.
http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/05/12/prosecutors-push-for-longer-sentence-for-siegelman/

The article you cited is hardly a reliable account of the information. I don't know why someone would post this opinion piece. It is from DailyKos, but it's an opinion piece from oped news. Trying to slam Obama for this is weak and mean.

[B Calm]

19. +1

[avaistheone1]

20. I call b.s. on the Obama admin for letting Sigelmann rot in jail.

Perhaps we should look on the bright side, Karl Rove is absolutely delighted with these actions.

[okaawhatever]

37. I wonder if Siegelman wants a pardon, or wants a new trial. If he's granted a new trial (Obama's

chief counsel for the White House just joined the legal team) then not only will his name be cleared, it will give him a chance to sue and possibly go after Rove and company. Depending on when that is decided by the Appeals court, it might be worth his waiting. In the appeal they asked for documents relating to whether Laura Canary really recused herself from the case. If that is granted and Seigleman has proof, I would love to see her brought up on charges. I also noticed the GOP just announced they are blocking all of Obama's nominations to the federal bench. Anyone wonder why that may be? There is a new US Attorney for middle Alabama. George L Beck Jr., an Obama appointee, who might retry the case if a new trial is granted.

A new trial without the Bush lackeys running the show may just be what Seigelman needs and wants.

[sabrina 1]

149. Good comment on the case and the possibility of a new US Attorney

for Ala. I don't think he should be given a pardon, that implies he did something wrong. He needs complete exoneration either with a new trial or an overturning of the conviction based on all the evidence of corruption that has surfaced since then.

[busterbrown]

39. Took awhile but finally someone made a lot of sense..

Its like many around here feel that Obama is responsible for the MIC and every fucking thing they do.
Yea, like a Black first term president who is vilified by right wing of being unamerican and a Muslim, should as a chief executive dismantle the entire MIC... Yea and follow that up with a Terrorist Attack on our soil and he would have been impeached as a traitor..

Thanks for your post..

[JEdwards8th]

168. Yes we don't have a king.

And both Clinton and Obama have had to contend with the Cheney/Rummy bureaucracy. We can only hope that in the back channels both made inroads in dismantling it here and there. It does make me feel like the U.S. is screwed, and that's sad. I'm kinda patriotic that way. Family's lived here since the Mayflower and the militarization of this country has encouraged fascistic impulses.

There was never any going back after WWII when we put in a standing army.

Just like there's no going back after 911 when we put in a standing police state.

Somehow, raging granny's get brutalized, but Teabaggers can steal barricades without so much as a squirt of pepper spray wafting in the air.

[Flying Squirrel]

46. Please repost as an OP n/t

[SidDithers]

58. Why are you introducing sense...

into a perfectly good manufactured outrage? You're gonna make all the usual Obama haters look bad.

Sid

[arthritisR_US]

62. What Seigelman continues to endure pisses me off to no end but I really appreciate

your post okaawhatever. I'm an affirmed Obama supporter, I realize that he's human and there is only so much he can do given the obstruction from the right but this information makes much more sense to me. Wish there was more information out there on how they are progressing with his case. Thanks for the reality check!

[okaawhatever]

114. I've been reading a lot today to catch up on what is going on w/Seigelman's case and I've found

quite a few changes that may explain why things have/are happening the way they are. I'm going to put it all together in one op and post it later tonight, but a few things to note.

The US Attorney for that district was Leura Canary, the woman who fought so hard to bring charges against Seigelman and whose husband is Karl Rove's close friend and Republican leader in Alabama, was finally replaced with an Obama appointee. During 2009 and 2010 Sen Sessions had a hold on all future nominees for that post. Obama tried to get two other appointees confirmed but couldn't.

New Democratic party chair in Alabama.

Siegelman is now requesting a completely new trial and has stated that Leura Canary didn't recuse herself the way she claims.
Leura Canary is rumored to be divorcing from her husband. Some have said if it gets ugly they might start pointing fingers at one another. She may also have lost her support from the Karl Rove camp.

I'll put it all together and post like I said but I also wanted to add the new US Attorney for Birmingham is the one on the news who broke up that multi-state dog-fighting ring in August.

[arthritisR_US]

136. Thank you so much! I look forward to your OP :)

[grantcart]

66. There are a lot of people here who have no understanding of the difference between

the lines drawn for ethical actions that can be done by political appointees in the Department of Justice.

Unless a constitutional issue is at stake the political appointees work on policy and cannot get involved in ongoing prosecutions. They especially cannot get involved in cases that have already been adjudicated.

[zipplewrath]

79. They can fire the Federal Prosecutor

And the senators can't stop him.

[grantcart]

109. Thanks for providing People's Exhibit #1

Actions by the Attorney General are subject to review by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice who reports to both the President and Congress:

http://www.justice.gov/oig/about/

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is a statutorily created independent entity whose mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in DOJ programs and personnel, and to promote economy and efficiency in those programs. The OIG investigates alleged violations of criminal and civil laws by DOJ employees and also audits and inspects DOJ programs. The Inspector General, who is appointed by the President subject to Senate confirmation, reports to the Attorney General and Congress.

When the office of the OIG finds that dismissals are done for possible political reasons they are reported to Congress.

Congress then has hearings on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy_hearings

The United States House Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, have oversight authority over Department of Justice (DOJ). In 2007 it conducted public and closed-door oversight and investigative hearings on the DOJ's interactions with the White House and staff members of the Executive Office of the President.

When the Bush Administration tried to get politically involved with Federal Prosecutors it resulted in the resignation of 9 senior administrators. Karl Rove resigned rather than answer a Senate subpoena on the issue.

The office of the Attorney General is a statutory defined position that has very specific rules and procedures about what legal and what political things that the AG can and cannot do. When there is a question about AG actions the OIG issues a report directly to Congress. The idea that the AG has unlimited unilateral power over prosecutors is a position that is put forth by people uninformed on how the office is structured.

In any case the information in the OP is not correct.

Federal Prosecutors asked for

Prosecutors asked that Siegelman be given 88 months again.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/08/don_siegelman_sentenced_to_78.html

Here is Siegelman's latest statement:

Siegelman told Fuller that he did not intentionally break the law, but a jury found him guilty and he respected that.

"If I had known I was coming close to the line where a campaign contribution becomes a bribe and a crime, I would have stopped," Siegelman said.

The proposition in the OP that Siegelman is facing a "20 year sentence" is not factually true. It is based on an OPED story posted June 4th. The link above shows the facts on August 3rd.

[Tarheel_Dem]

101. Uh oh. You're in trouble. You've introduced facts into a year old smear campaign.

[redqueen]

106. Thanks.

This routine is nothing new and it's sad to see so many recs.

[okaawhatever]

108. i have a lot of updating to do and will post an op later tonight. There have been some changes and I

think i'm beginning to see why Seigelman asked for a brand new trial in August of this year. I'll post more later. Thx.

[red dog 1]

121. No, the article YOU cited is hardly a reliable account of what has transpired since 5/12/09

Last edited Thu Oct 31, 2013, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Why don't you read Thom Hartmann's interview with Don Siegelman, which was done in December of 2009, more than seven months after your "mainjustice" article, and read what Gov. Siegelman himself says.

I'll ask you what I've asked the others:
What EXACTLY in the OP is not true?

I have not "tried to slam Obama" at all.

I posted the OP because I believe a great injustice has been done to an innocent man, and I think President Obama should pardon him...don't you?

How about Mimi Kennedy's Huffington Post article?
Is her article also "hardly a reliable account of the information"?
Is Mimi Kennedy trying to slam Obama too?

How about Rep. Steve Cohen's questioning of Attorney General Eric Holder about the Siegelman case?
Is Rep. Cohen an Obama-basher trying to slam Obama too?

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

130. Fuck the Alabamanian Republicans.

FIRE LEURA CANARY AND HOLD HER FOR RICO CHARGES AND TAMPERING WITH FEDERAL LAWS ALSO I FIND HER GUILTY OF SEDITION AND MUST BE PUT TO DEATH AS A MESSAGE TO ALL REPUBLICANS NOT TO FUCK WITH THE AMERICAN LAWS

AND THEN ORDER ALL REPUBLICAN U.S. ATTORNIES FIRED IMMEDIATELY AND NUKE THE SENATE REPUBLICANS TO PUT IN REAL PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC ATTORNIES

[truebluegreen]

170. Um...Buddha of Wisdom?

Not that I disagree with the general sentiment, but why are you yelling at us?

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

173. Just frustrated...

plus my caps lock was stuck all night... so I finally fixed it by cleaning out the keyboard... (It's a laptop)

[truebluegreen]

183. Yeah, I get it.

Welcome to DU.

[uponit7771]

187. ****THX FOR THE TRUTH*****

[avaistheone1]

15. I thinks something stinks to high heavens here.

This is totally outrageous and reflects very poorly on the Obama administration.

What the hell are they doing?

[okaawhatever]

21. It's not the Obama administration, this article/editorial is full of crap. Obama didn't ask for

anything. In the article the author states it was the "Obama justice department" but it was shortly after his inauguration and the longer sentence was requested by the Federal prosecutor appointed by Bush. Obama has tried to replace her but has been blocked by Sessions and the other dbag senator from Alabama.

[busterbrown]

40. One should read all the posts before coming to any conclusion..

It works..

[Coyotl]

17. Can you provide some proof of this, along with names of who did it?

There are a lot of Bushbots in the Department of Justice, regretably, for starters. So, please provide some documentation of this being factual and some sort of link to the actual person who did this if you can confirm the fact.

[jeff47]

29. Pfft. That would get in the way of the Obama bashing!

This story is about the US attorney for Alabama. Appointed by Bush. And attempts to replace her have been blocked by the senators from Alabama.

[Deny and Shred]

24. Why? Is there some quid pro quo about which we don't know?

Their focus on this case makes no sense. All manner of financial misdealings get fines and no jail time - we're talking instances of fraud in the billions, yet DOJ pushes THIS case?

Shameful. Can you explain it?

There have been amazing aspects and achievements during this presidency, but my major disappointment has been with the whole 'look forward, not back' thing. Add to the fold the cases they do pursue, i.e., the prosecuting of whistelblowers, weed, and in this case extending the incarceration of Gov. Siegelman.

[okaawhatever]

146. There is a lot of history to this case.....a lot. Big time gop operatives were behind this from the

beginning. Just a few examples of the insanity.

If you don't remember, this was the case Karl Rove was subpoenaed to testify before Congress for. It went to court because he tried to claim executive privilege. That was one tiny drama.

How horrible was the prosecution? Over 70 state's attorney generals have written a brief in support of Siegelman calling it a "political persecution" and that Siegelman is the only political prisoner currently residing in the US. Those AG's are from both parties, so it's not just the democrats supporting this.

How corrupt is Alabama and how far did the Bush/Cheney/Rove machine reach? 60 Mionutes did a special on the Siegelman prosecution. It didn't even contain the worst of the charges against Rove et al. Nevertheless, in the Alabama market the CBS affilliate had an "accidental blackout" during the exact 20 minutes that segment was on. Yep, everyone in the United States could watch the show except the folks in Alabama. Think they were afraid of something?

The only true, true case of election fraud. This is from the election in 2002. In a nutshell...All major media call the Governors race for Siegelman. Narrow margin, but he wins. Wake up in the morning and Baldwin County says, no, we made a mistake and we recalculated and you lost. The dems say, okay let's recount ballots. Repubs say, no and we won't turn over the ballots. Goes to court, court says no the sheriff doesn't have to turn over the ballots. Congratulations to new Republican Governor. While all the gop media claimed Seigelman was making it up, I recently founed a paper written at Auburn that gave a mathematical analysis and what happened and they concurred it was fraud, no if's and's or but's. Now, that election had nothing to do with the reason Seigelman's in jail except that the governor who won's campaign staff was the husband of the woman who ended up putting him in jail.

Try to read some articles or watch the 60 minutes segment on the internet. Fascinating story, especially the stretch to get to the quid pro quo argument.

[cali]

28. this is a real piece of shit article that deliberately misleads

op-ed news is a shitty site.

[busterbrown]

34. Yup and so many suck it up around here...N/t

[okaawhatever]

38. Yes, yes, yes. Thank you for mentioning. nt

[busterbrown]

41. You are a breath of fresh air on this link today....

Everyone loves to jump to conclusions, especially if they want to believe them

[Coyotl]

44. Op-Ed News is a domain that allows anyone to post anything, basically.

It certainly should not be used as a source without some good research.

[cali]

57. I agree. it's a particularly bad source.

[heaven05]

30. not true

see post #14. A lot of you are worse than the rethugs on bashing our POTUS. geez

[KY5]

31. Anyone got a mainstream source for this?

LA Times, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.

How about a press release or statement from the DOJ?

OpEdNews, which that Daily Kos article cites as its main source is user-generated news with no editorial oversight to filter out nonsense. I just don't accept anything that's not well-sourced.

[red dog 1]

126. How about Mimi Kennedy's article from the Huffington Post?.. Is it not "Well-sourced"?

Have you watched the video I posted?
(I know The Huffington Post isn't the LA Times, New York Times, Washington Post etc&quot

Have you read the Thom Hartmann interview I cited?

I know Thom Hartmann isn't a "mainstream source" either; but he is a Progressive Democrat, and so is Governor Siegelman himself.

Did you see the link I provided of Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen questioning Eric Holder about the Siegelman case?..(Reply #4)

"A press release or statement from the DOJ"?....Don't make me laugh!

[jeff47]

163. No, it isn't. Because it's wrong.

The US Attorney in Alabama, a Bush appointee, was the one asking for more time. Not the DOJ or Obama, as your story claims.

She could not be replaced, because the Senators from Alabama were blocking the confirmation of anyone else.

[MynameisBlarney]

32. You have GOT to be fucking kidding me!

This can't be true.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

42. This is consistent with the selective prosecution of Gov Blago after he took issue with the B of A.

Former Governor Blagojevich (D) served as the 40th Governor of Illinois from 2003 to 2009. There was no serious interest in his long-term criminality involving pay-offs (not unusual for an Illinois politician) until he publicly sided with some laid off factory workers and said that the State of Illinois would discontinue doing business with the Bank of America as a result of the B of A's refusal to honor a lay-off agreement.

Then, the prosecutors took an interest.

What has happened since? Have the federal prosecutors gone after additional Illinois politicians? Could it be that there are no more Illinois politicians who are corrupt? Maybe that's the answer.

[geek tragedy]

55. LMAO.

What has happened since? Have the federal prosecutors gone after additional Illinois politicians? Could it be that there are no more Illinois politicians who are corrupt? Maybe that's the answer.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/28/politics/jesse-jackson-jr-prison/index.html

More derp:

Former Governor Blagojevich (D) served as the 40th Governor of Illinois from 2003 to 2009. There was no serious interest in his long-term criminality involving pay-offs (not unusual for an Illinois politician) until he publicly sided with some laid off factory workers and said that the State of Illinois would discontinue doing business with the Bank of America as a result of the B of A's refusal to honor a lay-off agreement.

Then, the prosecutors took an interest.

Timeline:

Rod Blagojevich, former Governor of Illinois, is an American politician under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation since 2005 for corruption. Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff John Harris were charged with corruption by federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. As a result of the scandal, Blagojevich was impeached by the Illinois General Assembly and removed from office by the Illinois Senate in January 2009. The federal investigation continued after this removal, and Blagojevich was indicted on corruption charges in April 2009.[3] On August 17, the jury found him guilty of one charge of making false statements with a mistrial being declared on the other 23 counts due to a hung jury after 14 days of jury deliberation.[4] On June 27, 2011, after a retrial, Blagojevich was found guilty of 17 charges of corruption (including wire fraud, attempted extortion, and conspiracy to solicit bribes), not guilty on one charge and the jury deadlocked after 10 days of deliberation on the two remaining charges.[5][6] On December 7, 2011, Blagojevich was sentenced to 14 years in prison.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/illinois-governer-suspend_n_149272.html

Illinois Governor Suspends Business With Bank Of America
Huffington Post | Katharine Zaleski
First Posted: 12- 8-08 10:56 AM

[great white snark]

122. What is it? Healthy living? Red Bull?

Bringing the facts with your pace and skillfulness is a sight to behold.

[geek tragedy]

123. The Google and a nose for bullshit. nt

[pscot]

152. Oh please. Blago was a cheap crook

and stupid to boot. Dude tried to sell a Senate seat.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

159. Huh? Blago was the only crook in Illinois politics? Or the only "cheap" crook in Illinois politics?

The policy should be to prosecute all the criminals, including all the war criminals.

But that is not the policy.

The policy is to not prosecute Republican war criminals.

The policy is also to not prosecute those who go along to get along, and who do not upset Bank of American and other corporations of the super-rich.

[pscot]

162. Blago was a grifter, in the best Chicago style

Obviously not all the crooks are in jail. It's a lot easier to bust dope smokers and hassle the poor than it is to prosecute politicians. Blago made it too easy. for them. They almost had to bust him or they would have looked like chumps.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

165. In the "best Chicago style," even well-liked politicians don't tick off the big-money people.

His problem was that he enjoyed being liked, and there were more working class people to like him than big-money people.

Unlike some politicians from Illinois, he neglected to learn the importance of quality over quantity. He neglected to learn that he was only supposed to say the words to attract the voters without actually taking action to show his sincerity.

[Coyotl]

45. You need to back up this pile of BS with some facts.

[Capt. Obvious]

53. OpEdNews.com eh?

I'm holding judgement until I read it on Examiner.com

[msanthrope]

175. You won the thread. nt

[Capt. Obvious]

180. Yes!

This week is ending a high note.

[stonecutter357]

54. I hate Libertarians more than Republicans.

Obama bashing!

[arthritisR_US]

67. Yep, Repubs have grown up warped and Libertarians just refuse to grow up..

[lostincalifornia]

64. The date on the tp link is June 2012.

[madrchsod]

69. isn`t that like over a year ago?

[lostincalifornia]

81. My goodness, you are right

[George II]

75. Was there a shortage of Anti-Obama talking points this morning so you dredged this....

....year and a half unsubstantiated bullshit up?

[EagleViewDC]

76. Author Andrew Kreig alert to new Alabama injustice and response to thread

Hi Everyone!

I see that my reporting on the Siegelman case (dozens of columns here and elsewhere) is a topic at various points in this thread. I stand by everything. If it ever became top priority I could describe the reasons in more detail.

For now, I'd like to note briefly that I do not believe some of the comments above provide a full and fair description of the editorial process at OpEdNews.

Of more pressing significance, let me share an ongoing story of continuing injustice in Alabama. For those who believe the Siegelman case has received too much attention this is for you. It's about a blogger reporter who was arrested, beaten and jailed Oct. 23 at his garage for refusing to remove his blog posts alleging a scandal involving a prominent attorney. http://www.justice-integrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=575:corruption-fighting-reporter-arrested-beaten-jailed-in-alabama-as-deputies-seek-wife-s-arrest&catid=21&Itemid=114

Shelby County sheriff deputies arrested Roger Shuler at his Alabama garage after he returned home Oct. 23. He faces a resisting arrest charge stemming from his refusal to obey a judge's order to stop writing about an alleged sex scandal involving Robert Riley Jr., a well-connected attorney who is part of Alabama's most prominent political family. Shuler, revealed in a jail photos with a swollen after his arrest, was being held on a $1,000 bond on his resisting charge. But the judge has declined to set bond on two contempt of court charges, thereby enabling authorities to hold Shuler for an undetermined period that could be many months, at the judge's discretion.

Shuler is still in jail with his wife barricaded in their house fearing her own arrest on a contempt charge. I'm scheduled to appear on two national radio shows shortly to discuss the case and its interesting innovations, including a pre-trial injunction against further reporting by Shuler on the matter. Also, the judge sealed the docket, thereby limiting scrutiny further. The case recalls other significant battles, and I trust you find it of interest.

Andrew Kreig

[Autumn]

100. Thanks for joining the thread. I don't think the Siegelman case can ever

receive too much attention. Thanks for the info on the Shuler case. I think what some of the posters in this thread have a problem with is that Daily kos changed the headline of your article to include Obama pushing for the longer sentence. Thank you for reporting on Siegelman and Shuler. Welcome to DU, we aren't always all touchy and crazy.

[grantcart]

111. I have a question concerning the June 4th article cited in this thread.

In that article that is cited it alleges that the federal prosecutors requested a 20 year sentence.

Is it not a fact that the prosecutors on August 3, 2012 requested an 88 month sentence?

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/08/don_siegelman_sentenced_to_78.html

Prosecutors asked that Siegelman be given 88 months again.

I understand that you did not write either the DailyKos or this OP, but it appears that others have quoted an outdated article by you and have gotten an essential fact wrong.

Could you please clarify simply the issue of how long a sentence the prosecutors asked for?

Thank you, welcome to DU.

[questionseverything]

132. brad says 20 years

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7145

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has made no official statements on the disposition of the Siegelman case, though in May, prosecutors in the case --- the same ones appointed by George W. Bush, who remained in their position even then --- argued in reply to Siegelman's appeal that his original sentencing of more than seven years, should now be extended to 20 years.

As of June 9th, 2009, according to a press release [PDF], "Justice Department whistleblower, Tamarah Grimes, formerly a member of the prosecution team in the case against former Governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy has been terminated by the U.S. Department of Justice."

Grimes' dismissal follows on the heels of a June 1 letter she sent to Holder "providing details of the misconduct on the part of the prosecutors in the Siegelman/Scrushy trial" and following a request by Scrushy attorneys to interview her about those allegations. Grimes is also said to have "provided internal documentation to the Senate Judiciary Committee which contradicted the claims of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary and Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin regarding the recusal of Leura Canary," who, apparently, never actually recused herself from the case against Siegelman, despite the conflict of interest in her husband's role as campaign chair to Siegelman's opponent, and his close ties to Karl Rove.

The agency claims Grimes' termination was unrelated to her whistleblower disclosures. Grimes, however, says the dismissal was a case of "whistleblower retaliation".
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

[grantcart]

135. From 2009, a few weeks after Holder took office

At the actual sentencing prosecutors asked for the 88 months (it was reduced slightly after that).

I am left wondering why we are getting an OP now about an action that took place a few weeks after the new Attorney General and is not consistent with the prosecutors action in 2012 at the actual hearing.

[questionseverything]

142. i can not speak for the op itself

http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=361

but new defenders are still being prosecuted in alabama (not by the feds) but by the locals...and that has just happened in the last couple weeks

i posted that bradblog link for ya...39 articles if you want to know about the entire mess

i care about this case because it is an incredible travesty of justice and it is not over,especially for those closest to it......think grant of everything racheal has laid out about that r-gov in virginia,gifts,bribes,everything and yet he is not prosecuted...but seigleman,a popular dem that had an election stolen from him in middle of the night and got NOTHING FOR HIMSELF rots in prison

folks blame obama because he could fix it with the stroke of a pen

[grantcart]

148. The OP is highly misleading, quiting a recent DailyKos article about an action

by Bush prosecutors a few weeks after Holder takes office that was not consistent with prosecutors actions in 2012. I wonder how many people rec'ing the OP know that it is about something that happened 4 1/2 years ago and doesn't reflect what prosecutors actually did at the sentencing hearing.

The general thrust of the OP suggests that the Obama currently or even recently got involved in trying to secure a 20 year sentence on Seigelman.

I don't find it helpful to Seigelman's push to get a pardon (the only practical resolution left since the appeal failed) by pushing a meme that is basically untruthful.

I hope that he does get a full pardon, but frankly would be surprised if it happens before the next Congressional election given the radical Republican hysteria, but there would be a case that a pardon now would help in that it would allow for even more demonstration of how radical the Republicans are and what actions they have taken. It's unfortunate that the OP didn't take that tact instead of resurrecting something that was a sideline issue 4 1/2 years ago and was never a practical proposal (it seems that the judge dismissed the effort without serious consideration). Getting the AG involved in quaterbacking individual cases sans proof a conspiracy or major legal malpractice would be a precedent that we don't really want established, for obvious reasons.

[questionseverything]

151. serving 20 years is misleading

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-turns-down-appeal-from-siegelman/2012/06/04/gJQAPNMLEV_story.html

but it was only last year obamas justice department prepared briefs against him...and kagel had already argued in court against him so to lay this mess on current admin is entirely appropriate

you said,

Getting the AG involved in quaterbacking individual cases sans proof a conspiracy or major legal malpractice would be a precedent that we don't really want established, for obvious reasons.

////////////////

but holder had no problem doing exactly that for r-stevens and the ag looking back at past cases involving federal corruption is entirely appropriate

i noticed you did not respond to the difference in treatment of seigleman compared to gov ultra sound

[grantcart]

153. I didn't respond to the treatment of Seigleman compared to Governor ultra sound

because I already accept that while there may have been some technical errors by Siegleman that there was a double standard between how his case was handled and every other case of a similar nature both in prosecution and in sentencing.

[questionseverything]

155. fair enough

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/03/more_than_100_former_state_att.html

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Former Gov. Don Siegelman's request that the U.S. Supreme Court review his conviction has the support of more than 100 former state attorneys general, who say the justices need to step in and prevent prosecutors from turning regular political donations into criminal acts.

"Because most of us have previously run for political office as candidates aligned with a major party, we are acutely aware that allowing prosecutors to cast a wide net in campaign contribution cases will stifle the legal ability of campaigns to raise needed funds for fear of politically motivated prosecution of themselves and their donors," the group wrote in a brief filed Thursday in Washington, D.C.

The brief was signed by a bipartisan group of 113 former state attorneys general, led by former New York Attorney General Robert Abrams.

[grantcart]

160. Just really unfortunate that he appointed Scrushy after he had faced Medicaid fraud charges

even though Scrushy had held the same posts before.


In reading the wiki page I did learn something I had not known before:

Representative Bob Riley defeated Siegelman in his November 2002 reelection bid by the narrowest margin in Alabama history: approximately 3,000 votes. The result was controversial, as on the night of the election, Siegelman was initially declared the winner by the Associated Press. Later, a voting machine malfunction in a single county, Baldwin County, was claimed to have produced the votes needed to give Siegelman the election. When the malfunction was corrected, Riley emerged the winner. Democratic Party officials objected, stating that the recount had been performed by local Republican election officials after Democratic observers had left the site of the vote counting, thus rendering verification of the recount results impossible. The state's Attorney General, Republican Bill Pryor, affirmed the recounted vote totals, securing Riley's election. Pryor denied requests for a manual recount of the disputed vote in an opinion warning that opening the sealed votes to recount them would be held a criminal offense. [12] Some observers have opined that perhaps the most objective observation about this vote shift is that there was no corresponding vote shift in other issues and candidates on these same ballots, a shift that would be expected if they were actually anti-Siegelman voters, probably a mathematical impossibility. Largely as a result of this controversy, the Alabama Legislature amended the election code to provide for automatic, supervised recounts in close races.[13]

I wonder if in these days with internet and cable if they could get away with such a brazen act of voter theft.

[questionseverything]

186. link on the medicaid fraud charges pls

and remember before you buy into that it would be same justice department making those claims

and inaccurate and impossible numbers are reported in elections all the time even in this day with the net.....generally nothing is done about it

the last line of your wiki post is a joke because "supervised recounts" mean running ballots thru same trust me machines or there is no paper to count with the "touchscreens"

riggednomore.com


http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7875

Results Drastically Changed

The election numbers have radically changed in Monroe County since the May 18th election. At least as reported on the SoS website, and as confirmed by local officials.

It's not all that unusual for the unofficial numbers to move a bit following election day, as absentee and provisional ballots are counted and added in to the totals, and as precinct numbers are double-checked for accuracy in the post-election canvass. It is, however, unusual, for vote totals to get a great deal smaller rather than larger in the days following the election. And that's what seems to have happened in Monroe County --- radically so.

Somehow, more than a thousand votes disappeared entirely, as the election results in the Dem and GOP Senate primaries have almost entirely changed.
///////////////////////////////////

the numbers flipping around in the bradblog article helped lincoln defeat her opponent in the primary...who knows maybe electronic voting and electronic reporting is why the dems lost the senate race in Arkansas

[grantcart]

219. While he was acquitted on criminal charges he paid massive fines to the SEC and had to repay

stockholders:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2004/December/04_civ_807.htm

HEALTHSOUTH TO PAY UNITED STATES $325 MILLION
TO RESOLVE MEDICARE FRAUD ALLEGATIONS

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a89tFKR4OevM

Scrushy paid $81 million to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to settle fraud charges filed in 2003. He paid $31 million to HealthSouth in the case before Horn, who decided in a pre-trial ruling that Scrushy didn’t deserve his bonuses.

He later was found guilty in a civil trial

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- HealthSouth Corp. founder Richard Scrushy, acquitted in 2005 on criminal charges of directing an accounting fraud, was found liable for $2.876 billion in a civil trial in Birmingham, Alabama.

“Scrushy knew of and actively participated in the fraud,” state court Judge Allwin E. Horn said in his ruling today. After a two-week trial, Horn ruled in favor of investors who brought the suit on behalf of the company.

“Scrushy was the CEO of the fraud,” Horn said in his ruling. The judge decided the case without a jury.

. . .

Horn heard from former chief financial officers, all of whom pleaded guilty to their roles in the accounting fraud and testified against Scrushy. Scrushy defended his actions in open court for the first time since the FBI raided HealthSouth offices in 2003. A jury acquitted him in June 2005 of criminal charges that he ran an accounting fraud that almost bankrupted the company, the largest U.S. provider of inpatient rehabilitation services.

Scrushy wasn't somebody that should have served on any official review board, in fact even without the fines and allegations he shouldn't be on a board that would have been regulating HealthSouth business.

But even if it was a bad choice Seigelman never benefited from Scrushy's gift to the lottery campaign and what should have happened was the campaign should have simply returned the contribution, in the same way that campaigns do all the time.

[questionseverything]

223. looks like all the same players

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/05/bad-judge-is-handling-mega-lawsuit.html

from that article..

Here is something to ponder: Horn is a corrupt Republican, and his successor will be appointed by our corrupt Republican governor, Bob Riley. Riley's son, Homewood attorney Rob Riley, plays a leading role in the HealthSouth litigation in federal court, representing plaintiffs against Scrushy and other individuals/entities.

(Rob Riley, by the way, has extensive connections to UAB, which just happened to unlawfully terminate yours truly not long after I had written a post about Riley's numerous conflicts of interest in the HealthSouth lawsuit. Much more on that coming up.)

Scrushy was Don Siegelman's codefendant in a criminal case, and Bob Riley was one of Siegelman's chief political adversaries.

And get this: Birmingham lawyer and former U.S. attorney Doug Jones was serving on Siegelman's defense team while also representing plaintiffs in the HealthSouth civil case in federal court. Guess who later would join Jones on the plaintiffs' side, against HealthSouth and Siegelman codefendant Scrushy? None other than Rob Riley.

Jones, who is known as a Democrat, supposedly had Siegelman's best interests at heart. But how could he fully represent Siegelman in a criminal case while going after Siegelman's codefendant in a civil case? And how could he have full loyalty to Siegelman and then side with Rob Riley, the son of Siegelman's chief adversary, in a civil case involving hundreds of millions of dollars.

Would Doug Jones (or Rob Riley, for that matter) recognize a conflict of interest if it fell out of the sky and landed in his lap? Much more is coming about "Me and Mr. Jones." On an Alabama listserv, "we've had a thing going on." And it reveals a lot about where Doug Jones' motivations and loyalties might lie.

But back to Allwin Horn and the Tucker v. Scrushy lawsuit in state court. Is the deck stacked against Scrushy? Sure looks like it.

What are the chances that Scrushy will get a fair hearing in a trial run by Allwin Horn? Not very good, I would say.

[grantcart]

224. I applaud you for your enthusiastic and highly speculative defense of Scrushy

who seems to be clearly involved in widespread fraud, to me.

Now we get speculation that the Judge was completely unfair and shouldn't have been involved.

But the facts go the other way. Scrushy and his lawyers waived a jury trial (despite having gotten a jury to acquit on the previous 85 criminal indictment) and opted for Horn to be the sole decision factor. I don't know but I suspect that they never requested a recusal either (doesn't make sense that they would waive a jury trial if they thought that there was a fix in with the judge.)

In any case Scrushy's guilt really has nothing to do with Siegelman's case whatsoever.

I leave you the final word on defending the outstanding and mistreated Scrushy.

[questionseverything]

226. posting a link looking at the "other" side is not enthusiastic

i honestly do not know enough about the scrushy case to be enthusiastic either way

i am not lawyer and i do not want to play one on the net but seiglemans defense lawyer teaming up with riley against seiglemans co conspirator in a civil trial seems like a conflict of interest to me,that was the point of the snip i posted

[questionseverything]

189. best documented race theft in country

http://fatallyflawedelections.blogspot.com/

http://www.sweetremedy.tv/fatallyflawed/media/RTA_Fraud_Flyer_3_7_12.pdf

open that pdf and read both sides...it is amazing that this crap flys

[zeemike]

113. Welcome to DU.

And thanks so much for joining in on this...it is an important topic.

[red dog 1]

131. Thanks for your reply, Andrew.

As far as I know, your OpEdNews article cited by Ralph lopez of Daily Kos is 100% true.

I've asked several OpEdNews-bashers to please point out anything that is untrue from your piece, and not a single one of them has been able to do so.

Thanks again for your contribution to this OP, and I, too, want to welcome you to DU.

I hope you will become a regular DU poster.

[BlueJac]

78. Just another disappointment from Obama

I just don't get it. A set up backed up by Obama.

[tblue]

85. It's worse than that to me. Does the punishment fit this crime???

It's a betrayal of everything — values, Party, ethics, hope.

I hoped beyond hope that President Obama would pardon this man so he can get on with his life. But no. On this he "looks backwards." He only looks backward at the WRONG THINGS. I am throwing up my hands. I can't help this President.

[me b zola]

86. Because the machine grinds on, regardless of who holds office n/t

[tblue]

87. So we are SOL, huh?

[me b zola]

89. Somethings got to give for us to move out of where we are

Eisenhower recognized way back that a large part of our government was already out of reach of those governed. It has only gotten worse in latter years. Something has got to give...

[Dr Hobbitstein]

91. Obama sucks!!!111!1one

Seriously, 5 minutes of google searching makes this op-ed out to be misleading bullshit. But, if you want to believe bullshit, have at it.

[Autumn]

102. How cool is it that the author of this piece is in your thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3956579

[red dog 1]

137. Way cool!

[Tarheel_Dem]

103. The responses in this thread are hilarious. "Fire the prosecutor". Anyone remember the DOJ purge..

engineered by Karl Rove, where DA's who weren't conservatively pure enough, were fired? Remember the outrage expressed here at DU? The notion that DOJ attorneys were appointed and dismissed based on their political affiliation? Ahhh, those were the days.

My, my...how DU has changed.

[questionseverything]

124. new presidents are expected to fire the last

admins attorneys...afterall he is responsible for what they do

that is quite different from what bush did which was selectively fire his own appointees when they were not political enough

[Tarheel_Dem]

128. "new presidents are expected to fire the last admins attorneys". LINK?????

[questionseverything]

134. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500486_162-2571144-500486.html

CBS)
Last night, Fox News' Brit Hume kicked off his show by criticizing the media for "news stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country [that] failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office back in 1993."

This argument has been making its way around the conservative echo chamber. Wrote Brent Baker: "The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignations of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the 'controversy,' fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006."

In light of all this, I thought it was important to compare the two cases.

The Washington Post laid it out like this: "Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."

Former acting attorney general Stuart Gerson, meanwhile, wrote that it "is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind." (Hat tip on this and the Post piece to TPM.)

David Burnham told NPR that what happened this time around "is close to unprecedented." He added this: "Now, that being said, when a president comes into office, historically, all the U.S. attorneys leave. And he appoints a new set of these individuals — there are about 90 of them…And they can be very powerful and influential in deciding which cases are prosecuted and which kinds of cases are not."

[Tarheel_Dem]

184. You said they were "expected" to. Is there a law?

[cui bono]

201. Since when are politician's choice of actions such as this legislated?

All you need to do is look at history to see that usually when a new president is sworn in they change out a lot of US Attorneys and other positions throughout govt, DOJ etc... Obama did not do this. Not even after such an extreme RW admin. Why not? That's the real question.

In fact, he not only neglected to change the political dynamic of the justice arena, he appointed Wall Street execs to his admin. Makes you wonder...

[Tarheel_Dem]

202. Per usual, you didn't answer the question. SHOCKED!!!!

[cui bono]

205. I did answer it, but I guess all you can understand and absorb are simple yes/no

answers. If you read what I wrote and actually comprehend it you'll see the answer.

Are you ever polite in discussions? Seems that you think DU is the yahoo! comments section.

But back to the point... I'll repeat it here, so if you decide to actually discuss you have it handy, although this is really more of a lesson for you to learn since you don't seem to know that this happens all the time:

All you need to do is look at history to see that usually when a new president is sworn in they change out a lot of US Attorneys and other positions throughout govt, DOJ etc... Obama did not do this. Not even after such an extreme RW admin. Why not? That's the real question.

In fact, he not only neglected to change the political dynamic of the justice arena, he appointed Wall Street execs to his admin. Makes you wonder...

[Tarheel_Dem]

206. "Are you ever polite in discussions?" There's no rule saying we have to interact.

But you always seem to track me down. There's a solution to your problem, ya know.



Hope that helps?

[cui bono]

213. Track you down? Yeah, like that's what I live for.

You really have a sense of self importance don't you.

No there's no rule saying we have to interact, so why do you do it then when you have nothing substantial to say? You do it for a reason, what is it? All you do is post taunts, insults, emoticons and pictures. What is the point? Why are you on a discussion board?

I've only used ignore on one person. I don't bury my head in the sand, I don't use ignore as a rule because I don't think we should turn a blind eye to things we disagree with. What if we just ignored the Tea Party? What if we ignored rampant pollution? What if we ignored bigotry? It doesn't help matters to ignore.

So I rebut and hope to discuss, but you don't do that. You have no desire to discuss anything so why are you here? The only thing you seem to want to read is that Obama is great and he never does anything wrong. Well that just isn't true, not by a long shot. He is a huge disappointment and has moved the country farther to the right. And that shift is still happening.

So maybe it's you who should use ignore, but you probably won't because that would be less people to reply to with your childish posts that say nothing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

215. "He is a huge disappointment and has moved the country farther to the right"

See, this is why people don't take Liberals seriously, especially you. The country has moved further right after the 2010 midterms. You remember. That was when the purists were running around boards like this telling us how much Obama sucked, and he hadn't even been in office for 2 years yet.

You're ridiculous, and that's exactly why you get this from me:

The reality is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023961081. I know it pisses you off, but "Democrats" like the Democratic Party, and its leadership. Notice, I said "Democrats", not liberals. Go figure.

[cui bono]

220. I'm not talking about elections, I'm talking about party stances/policies.

The Dems are now by and large centrists, thanks to DLC/Third Way types. Clinton moved Dems to the right with a lot of his policies - free trade for one. It's been a shift rightward for quite a while, by both parties. Obama is now what Reagan was. Reagan would be drummed out of the GOP today. The GOP is now extreme right. So we have a center and a right as far as parties, no left. So unions are screwed, and have been. Social issues have been given to the left as a bone to keep them satisfied, while the desired economic shifts that favor the 1% continue.

Oh, and to bring it back around to the original issue being discussed, Obama failed to purge/replace a lot of RW Bush appointees, causing you know what, a shift to the right since now we're at that point with a Dem president rather than a Republican president. And you know next time a Republican is in the WH they will purge and replace with even more right wingers.

I'm not sure why you posted that link about Republican dissatisfaction with the GOP. What was the point? I can't speak to that OP since I don't know why you brought it up.

You seem to be at war with members of your own party. I don't understand your attitude. Why do you hate liberals so much? Seriously. You seem to absolutely hate liberals, why is that? What do liberals stand for that you disagree with? And why do you not consider them to be Democrats? The Dem party has a history of being liberal, it's recently that it has shifted rightward and become centrist.

But seriously, I really would like to know why you hate liberals so much and what is it that they stand for that you are so against?

[Tarheel_Dem]

227. "Put simply, Democrats are largely content with their own party"

Had you bothered to actually read the information at the link you wouldn't have missed that little gem.

Put even more simply, some of you guys are a big noise on the internet, but not within the Democratic Party because that's obviously the way the rank-n-file want it? If that weren't the case, then the more liberal wing of the party would be much more successful. I'm willing to bet that the majority of us don't wish to be taken over by some knock-off leftist version of the Tea Party, and we "largely" support the Democratic Party "AS IS". How hard is that for you to grasp?

Elect more liberals statewide, and watch your influence grow. Otherwise, you'll still be here in ten years pissing & moaning about the loss of liberal influence on the Democratic Party. If "Democrats are largely content with their own party", what does that say about the "malcontents"? Perhaps we've moved past you?

[cui bono]

229. Well when you just put a link to an OP that has a heading that isn't about our topic

I don't know what sentence to pull from it. Thanks for letting me know what you wanted me to read.

However, that's just not true. Polls will show you that the American public is more liberal than either party. The elected politicians are there because big money wants them there. That's what the DLC has done to the party, brought in big business and allowed money to decide who will run and who will be supported.

And we all know the media is corporate owned, so they can control things as well, like who gets exposure, whose message gets out and who gets smeared. Remember Howard Dean? There you go.

As to your hatred of the left, you know the Dem Party used to be left and it got taken over by DLCers and centrists, so I'm not sure why you think the left isn't supposed to take over the Dem Party. That brings me back to my question to you which is really key here. What is it that the left stands for and fights for that bothers you so much, that you disagree with so much? What is it that you stand for that the left threatens or disagrees with?

As to your almost last comment I totally agree, liberals need to work to get elected more on the state levels and then move upwards. But your very last comment is just incorrect.

But seriously, please tell me what is it that the left stands for and fights for that bothers you so much, that you disagree with so much? What is it that you stand for that the left threatens or disagrees with?

[Tarheel_Dem]

230. First of all, you can stop putting words in my mouth for a start.

I'd like you to point to any post of mine, where I claim to "hate" liberals. Get over yourself. The "liberals" I encounter here at DU, are in no way the kind of liberals I know & associate with IRL.

Secondly, you "internet liberals" need to quit blaming everyone else for your failings. Stop making the same tired old worn out excuses, and blaming everyone but yourselves for your lack of influence. Continued cries of "DLC/DNC/CORPOROMEDIA" make you look weak and ineffective (and that ain't far from the truth). Look at OWS. When it was clear that it was quickly becoming a failure that it is, we started hearing accusations of FBI infiltration to make the movement "look bad".

Stop It! Grow the hell up! Take some damn responsibility that either your message, or your messengers are a big ol' failure!

[cui bono]

231. I'm not. You said you haved moved on from liberals. You stated in a post above you don't think of

liberals as Dems.

I'm asking you a policy/values question which you are refusing to answer.

But I'll try again... what is it about liberals' values/policies that you don't like? Why have you "moved on" from liberals? How do liberals' values/policies differ from your own?

As to your "Secondly" paragraph. That is utter nonsense and not founded in reality at all. First of all it's facts, not blame. How do you think the Dem party got so centrist? Magic? Why do you think they are centrist now, for the people? Centrists policies benefit corporations. None of this is new information. It's been known for a while that the DLC, the corporate wing of the Dem party, has moved it to the right. You yourself just said you've "moved on" from liberals. Well you certainly didn't move left! I don't understand why you think that is a false assumption.

But again, to see why you are saying all of this the following is important. What is it about liberals' values/policies that you don't like? Why have you "moved on" from liberals? How do liberals' values/policies differ from your own?

Why won't/can't you answer that? It's a simple question.

[Tarheel_Dem]

232. I did not say that I've "moved on". I said, perhaps "the party" has moved....

past you. Obviously, reading comprehension is an issue? If the overwhelming majority of "Democrats" are satisfied with the direction of the party, and it's leadership, and you're still here griping about it, doesn't it stand to reason that "the party" and it's rank-n-file have "moved past you"?

Gawd...what's so hard about that? Jeez, Louise.

[cui bono]

233. You said "we've moved past you". Exact quote is in my post.

Put even more simply, some of you guys are a big noise on the internet, but not within the Democratic Party because that's obviously the way the rank-n-file want it? If that weren't the case, then the more liberal wing of the party would be much more successful. I'm willing to bet that the majority of us don't wish to be taken over by some knock-off leftist version of the Tea Party, and we "largely" support the Democratic Party "AS IS". How hard is that for you to grasp?

Elect more liberals statewide, and watch your influence grow. Otherwise, you'll still be here in ten years pissing & moaning about the loss of liberal influence on the Democratic Party. If "Democrats are largely content with their own party", what does that say about the "malcontents"? Perhaps we've moved past you?

So, what is it about liberals that you don't like? That you think is against moderate Dems? I don't think I've been griping at all, just trying to find out what your issue with the left is. And really, you've got to admit that when you use the term "some knock-off leftist version of the Tea Party" one is going to presume you "hate" the left. Be honest.

I'm trying to understand where you stand. You've said a lot of negative things towards the left, OWS etc... so I'm trying to find out what it is that you dislike about the what the left stands for and fights for.

That's pretty much all I've been trying to do for the last three posts or so. I don't really understand why you don't want to answer.

[Tarheel_Dem]

235. OOO

?

'Nuff said!

[cui bono]

236. So after all that we end up where we started. You not being able to have a mature discussion.

Not surprised. Not surprised one bit.

From this exchange it's absolutely clear you don't have a clue about anything in politics except you just have to defend Obama and make snarky remarks and post emoticons to anybody who criticizes his actions.

And, of course you can't even admit when you are shown to be wrong by being quoted for something you denied saying. But then you denied it when it was clear that you had said it, so why would you.

[Tarheel_Dem]

237. Further proof that the acorn doesn't fall far from the Old Elm.

[tritsofme]

234. US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president.

There is nothing scandalous about firing holdovers that do not resign.

[MannyGoldstein]

138. It's been going on since Reagan

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/23/nation/na-talking23

[jeff47]

164. That can only happen when a new US Attorney can be confirmed

And the senators from Alabama were blocking that.

[questionseverything]

185. incorrect

bush fired carol lam because she busted the number 3 in the cia at a west coast department....no one was in place or confirmed before hand....her next in line just ran her department until a replacement was confirmed

[jeff47]

188. Nope. She resigned.

Yes, she was forced to resign, but she still resigned.

[questionseverything]

190. us attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president

period

why current admin did not force these corrupt "bushies" out i do not know but please do not spread the disinfo that he did not have that power and right to do so...now if you want to say,well the next in line could of been just as bad that is a possibility because bush packed the civil service jobs with regency grad nuts

[jeff47]

193. Nope, they don't.

In order to prevent the political part of Executive branch from corrupting the legal system, the US attorneys have a great deal more protections than "regular" Executive branch employees.

They can be fired, but it's a long process with many reviews which more-or-less requires proving wrongdoing while in office.

why current admin did not force these corrupt "bushies" out i do not know

Because they can say "No" when asked to resign.

My question is why so many agreed to be forced out under W.

[questionseverything]

197. link pls

civil servants have protections,political appointees do not

but i would of loved these bushies in alabama to have had to defend themselves in a long drawn out review and with all the clout potus had after 2008 roves "girls" would of been ripped to shreds

[eomer]

221. Yes, they do. US Attorneys can be removed at will by the President.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=usgovinfo&cdn=newsissues&tm=10&f=00&tt=2&bt=8&bts=8&zu=http%3A//www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000541----000-.html

http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=sulr

The rules you refer to are for civil service employees.

And because of a change in 2005 to the Patriot Act, if the Senate refuses to confirm the President's appointment of a successor then the Attorney General can appoint a replacement to serve until that confirmation occurs:

In the course of reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 546 was amended to (1) delete the preexisting 120-day time limit that
had applied to the Attorney General's interim appointments (those necessary
to fill vacancies that arise); (2) permit indefinite tenure of interim
appointees so long as the President declines to appoint, or the Senate
fails to approve, a permanent successor; and (3) completely eliminate the
role previously played by the federal district court for the district in
which the vacancy exists.¹⁴ Thus, the Executive power ostensibly may
be used to remove a United States Attorney from a position which is then
filled, not by the President and Congress, but by the Attorney General,
and for a term bounded only by the President's willingness to advance
new appointees.¹⁵ Recognizing that it has been shut out of the process,
both Houses of Congress have responded by proposing bills to restore
the previous checks on the appointment and removal power and to limit
the Attorney General's participation in vacancy-filling procedures.<sup>16[/sup

http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=sulr</sup>

So the President could have fired all US Attorneys in 2009, as was customary for a new President, or he could have fired US Attorney Canary at a later time and there were no legal constraints on his ability to do either. The only limit on this authority of the President is the political ramifications.

[Coyotl]

216. That changed with Obama. We'll see what the next President does.

The idea is to remove the process from the political sphere. Good idea if it works.

[questionseverything]

217. what will happen then is rove will permanently stay

in charge

hind sight being 20/20 at least in alabama it was a huge mistake

[Coyotl]

105. So, you edited the OP. Now edit the Obama bashing. Bash those who deserve it.

[red dog 1]

140. I didn't "edit" the OP...I ADDED to it.

What EXACTLY have I posted that is "Obama-bashing"?

Do you think an innocent Democrat languishing in jail is perfectly OK?

What has Eric Holder OR Barack Obama ever done to help Governor Siegelman?

Do you oppose a Presidential pardon for Governor Siegelman?

Do you consider ANY criticism of President Obama to be "Obama-bashing"?

Isn't Barack Obama a human being?

Don't we all make mistakes?

[jeff47]

166. Well...

What EXACTLY have I posted that is "Obama-bashing"?

Well, you're claiming Holder and Obama requested 20 years, when that was a Bush US attorney. And the actual request at sentencing was 88 months.

Do you think an innocent Democrat languishing in jail is perfectly OK?

Do you think lying is a good way to fix that?

What has Eric Holder OR Barack Obama ever done to help Governor Siegelman?

They don't get to interfere in cases. That's a good thing - you wouldn't want the President to be able to successfully "pull a Nixon".

Don't we all make mistakes?

You mean like making a post implying Obama is personally demanding a 20 year sentence, today, for Siegelman?

[rhett o rick]

117. Something is extremely wrong here. What could possibly be the justification for this? nm

[grantcart]

161. This is a story about something that happened in 2009 a few weeks after Holder was

put in as AG.

It is questionable to me if it was even serious at that time. In any case when it came to the hearing the federal prosecutors requested 88 months, the old sentence.

I am guessing that a lot of people on this thread thought that this was a recent action and not something that happened almost 5 years ago.

[rhett o rick]

167. Why is Gov Siegelman still in prison? Cant the President get him out? This is clearly

a miscarriage of justice. Why hasnt he been pardoned?

[grantcart]

171. The question of a pardon for Siegelman would be a reasonable premise for an OP.

What is the reason for misstating an action that occurred a few weeks after Holder was installed and which wasn't what the prosecutors actually presented at the sentencing trial in 2012?

I would not be surprised that some would calculate that a pardon would cause too much reaction until after the 2014 GE.

I would argue that a pardon would cause a strong Republican reaction, and that wouldn't be a bad thing, that it would remind people of the bad deeds of the Rove gang.

But I would also state that OPs like this one that are confusing and, frankly misleading, don't advance anything.

[rhett o rick]

181. Maybe the President will pardon Gov Siegelman at the same time he pardons Bush

and the Bush gang to try to offset the outrage by the left.

[madville]

133. Why not just pardon him?

Commute his sentence and/or pardon him, the President could do that right?

[EagleViewDC]

143. Pardon/commutation are unrealistic without informed public outrage far greater than now

I covered a Heritage Foundation panel last December on the pardon/commutation power. All panelists (who included former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig) were sympathetic to much more in the way of such clemency actions by presidents and governors, but agreed that it has become almost politically impossible these days. The full details, including legal obstacles, would be on the Heritage site and can also be found on the Justice Integrity Project site (www.justice-integrity.org). I attended with the hope of finding something encouraging for those like Siegelman. It did not seem visible, for reasons explained. What's needed is a bipartisan commission to take such actions outside of party politics. PS sorry for a couple of typos in previous post.

[Octafish]

222. Like when Smirko pardoned Scooter Libby for outting Valerie Plame?

Congress got all over him. Except it didn't.

[EagleViewDC]

139. Author Andrew Kreig again

Hello again!

I can shed some light on a couple of points of discussion on this thread. For those who truly want to get the bottom of the Siegelman case from a big picture standpoint, I believe I can point the way also but it takes more time and more of an open mind than most people have. So let's stick to the specifics that have raised concern here.

First, the Obama Justice Department asked for a 20-year sentence for Siegelman in May 2009 following a ruling two months previously by the federal appeals court dismissing some counts in what was then a 7-year sentence, according to both an AP article and Siegelman's website. See Dothan Eagle, MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — "Federal prosecutors want former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman to serve a much longer sentence than he originally received in a federal government corruption case, even though an appellate court has thrown out two of the charges against him." Such an initiative doubtless originated by holdover personnel, and yet would have also been subject to review in DC by the new administration, which is responsible for actions in its name even if the president would probably not have been informed of it by his close friend Eric Holder. By 2012, prosecutors had reduced their request to 88 months. Something has apparently been lost in the many rewrites of this time line, not surprising since the docketed entries probably entend to at least six feet in height -- a rather large task for all the reporters and reader commentators to keep in mind during this 14-year probe and prosecution for events in 1999. This strikes me, at any rate, as a relatively small point by now in this saga since it is clearly the case that the Obama administration has fought Siegelman in a host of other respects, including twice at the Supreme Court.

On Nov. 5, the hardcover edition of my book on recent presidents and candidates will be announced providing my take on what I learned in six years covering this case intensively, beginning with advice to former Rove colleague Jill Simpson on the eve of her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee staff on how she learned that Siegelman was being frame, how the judge was in on it, the motives, etc. This is a relatively small part of the book dealing with similar situations over the past century, mostly concentrated in recent years, especially deviltries concocted during the Bush-Cheney years. It's not feasible to try to summarize a 350 page book supported by 1,100 endnotes here except to say Simpson's story checks out despite many denials all around, and make sense once one understands rivalries, opportunities, and fears that extend far beyond lawbooks and courts. I welcome any informed discussion of this, especially before academic, legal, and other audiences that proceed with the rigor that I have applied to the research. Please contact me if you would like to arrange a suitable venue, especially convenient to my base area of DC-NYC. Leaders of Alabama's Democratic Party invited me to such a discussion in late August there, but the timing wasn't quite right and instead I donated several paperback advance copies to their fund-raising efforts as part of an awareness effort.

That continues with my high-priority right now to help underscore the plight facing not just Roger Shuler in Alabama's court system but others in any kind of civil litigation who might find themselves before such powerful adversaries as the Riley family with a judge who seemingly operates contrary to settled law. The situation is so extreme that Alan Colmes hosted me this evening on his radio show nationally syndicated via Fox News Talk. He is one of relatively few of that stature to understand the implications of prior restraint, sealing a court record, and throwing a blogger into jail for an unlimited contempt term without a contested hearing. I gather that a number of commentators here are attorneys, journalists, and thoughtful political thinkers in other respects. With all the humility I can muster, I can only say that if you have not done a deep, deep dive into the world of politics Bush/Rove style as I have done in these years, I suspect it is hard to imagine what can actually occur. "Hardball" does not do it justice.

Finally, path in DC occasionally brings me into encounters or other discussions with true insiders. In friendly, casual conversation, I have advised the first two White House counsel that they would be extremely well advised to counsel relevant individuals to be on the right side of the Siegelman case. On his own, the first White House is now a pro bono counsel for the imprisoned Siegelman and recently filed legal papers that, in a normal case, would merit remedial action.

My point, however, is that this has never been a normal case, for many years. Unless those reasons are exposed or otherwise addressed, I see no good result for this until the long years of the term are completed. I sincerely hope that I am wrong! Am on HuffPo Live! tomorrow describing how the flying monkeys are coming after Shuler. The Riley case seems just the first part of a plan for strategic lawsuits to cripple bloggers who dare report what the MSM overlooks in this environment -- including kowtowing to the authorities from both parties who claimed no one should be concerned about the fairness of Siegelman's judge.\

Andrew Kreig

[red dog 1]

141. + 1000

[msanthrope]

177. Please clarify who requested the sentence increase. It's pretty sloppy journalism

to cite "The Obama Justice Department." Who was the attorney, and when did this happen?

Frankly, I'm unintrested in hearing more about the case if Seigelman and his defenders are going to stupidly allow themselves to be used by the right wing.

[Doctor_J]

172. The fan club is now defending Karl Rove.

This place gets downright sickening some times

[DefenseLawyer]

174. The rank and file at justice are all still Bush people

I deal with AUSAs every day, and they are the very same right wing jerks I dealt with when Bush was President. Hell, President Obama didn't even replace the Bush appointed U.S. Attorneys in some places.

[red dog 1]

198. Thanks for this info

Get ready to be labeled as an Obama-basher.by the DU wing-nuts

[SidDithers]

182. Unrec...nt

Sid

[Jeffersons Ghost]

228. Because a right-wing Bush appointee named Alexander of the NSA puppets the president

I lived in Alabama when Siegelman (obviously of Jewish decent) was prosecuted on false charges while he was about to become governor of Alabama because he was campaigning on a platform of raising money to build better education in the state by creating casino gambling. He was obviously going to beat a Republican by adopting that position. He was prosecuted on false charges. Obama is obviously intimidated by all the threats on his life, which the NSA facilitates, or conceals. Obama has had his life threatened more than ANY other president in history; and Director Alexander of the NSA/ CSS in charge of overall cyber-command allows or facilitates these threats through various clandestine channels[brought to you NSA fuck-ups courtesy of the CIA, an agency that staunchly defends the commander in chief, unlike you propaganda playing traitors].