U.S. Attorneys Scandal—Birmingham and Montgomery

[maddezmom]

There’s something dark and unseemly in the Heart of Dixie. The Assistant U.S. Attorney who handled the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman–a matter which has now moved to the front burner of the U.S. Attorneys corruption scandal–has issued a remarkably limp and unconvincing statement in reply to the articles published by the New York Times and Time Magazine at the end of last week and over the weekend. It’s a curious exercise in halfhearted negatives. He starts by quoting himself, and noting that he’s not read the attorney’s affidavit that started the whole affair–a rather amazing confession of lack of diligence, considering that the document is internet ubiquitous–and he therefore declines to respond to it. That, of course, is just where the document should have stopped. Instead it goes on to insist that “I have never spoken with or even met with Karl Rove.” And on that point–which is emerging as the “I did not have sex with that woman” of the current scandal–his statement bears the unmistakable echoes of Monica Goodling, who also had no meetings or discussions with Mr. Rove, even as she served as his principal implementer in the affair. Count me decidedly unconvinced, or rather persuaded that a careful wall of unsworn evasions and halftruths is being constructed around something very unseemly.

Another fact suggests why this unsworn statement deserves to be met with complete skepticism: in response to a FOIA request for documents focusing on the interaction of the White House with the Alabama federal prosecutors, the Department of Justice responded by a blanket refusal. Not a denial that any documents existed. A refusal to turn them over. There is a cover-up underway here, and a genuinely detached prosecutor needs to be appointed to get to the bottom of it. Starting with a careful examination of the email and other written communications concerning the matter and interviews of the two U.S. Attorneys involved, Mr. Canary and Mr. Rove.

more:http://harpers.org/archive/2007/06/hbc-90000248

[Peace Patriot]

1. Yeah, I've been smelling a rat on this one since I first heard about it.

Ever since the civil rights struggle won full voting rights for black citizens in the 1960s, the rightwing fascists in the south in cahoots with the rightwing fascists of the global corporate predator universe have been working on other ways to disenfranchise black and other Democratic voters. "Voter caging" lists are one method, with black voters, U.S. soldiers in Iraq and students as particular targets. Diebold/ES&S "trade secret," proprietary voting machines is another--how to shave off percentages of votes, here and there, where "necessary," without detection. (What money can't buy, and what "caging lists" can't purge, Diebold/ES&S can steal.) Overkill prosecutions of Democratic office holders and Democratic voters would be another. And maybe even setting Democratic office holders up--using the Bush Junta's vast illegal domestic spying apparatus, and God knows what other secret capabilities of an unaccountable government.

I am fairly sure this is what happened to Kevin Shelley, the Democratic Secretary of State in California, who sued Diebold for their lies about the security of their voting machines, and decertified the worst of their machines (the touchscreens) six months before the 2004 election. Just before the election, real vague and smelly set-up type corruption charges against Shelley surfaced in the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, then got repeated--still quite vaguely--in the first months after that election. The charges never amounted to anything, but they hounded Shelley so thoroughly--with several corrupt Dieboldized county election officials chiming in about how awful Shelley was, and the new state Democratic Party leadership standing down, caving to Diebold and Schwarzenegger--and with Bush's "Election Assistance Commission" threatening months and years of investigation, Shelley couldn't do his job under these circumstances, and had no money for a legal defense fund--and finally, in Feb. '05, resigned (--to be replaced by a Diebold shill, Bruce McPherson).

Some young woman in his office charged him with "sexual harassment" because he got mad and yelled at her one day. Another charge was that he was "misusing" federal election funds. What he was doing was withholding payments to Diebold for their crapass, hackable voting machines. That was counted as "misuse." Also, he was following standard practice in providing information on the new voting systems to political and voter registration groups, and that somehow got twisted into partisan use of federal election funds. And one contributor to his campaign got a favor. None of these charges amounted to jack shit--and the Calif AG (a Democrat) refused to charge Shelley with any of it. By fair accounts, Shelley was a driven Sec of State, who was growing increasingly suspicious of electronic voting (which he inherited from his predecessor, Republican Bill Jones, who now works for one of the electronic voting firms), and he was passionate about riding herd on Dieobld and on the county election officials who were tied to Diebold and who have become increasingly secretive and arrogant in their dealings with the public. His devotion to his job may have caused him to be inattentive to some details--like documenting the phony "sexual harassment" charge. Bear in mind this was 2003-2004, the heart of darkness of the Bush Junta. Preventing election fraud obsessed more than a few good people in this country at that time.

And they got him. They "swift-boated" Shelley out of office, on bogus charges. How much of this campaign to remove Shelley was orchestrated from Karl Rove's office? How much of it was surreptitious planting of agents, and spying? How much of it was bribery? Lying? And Karl Rove's specialty--making something out of nothing in the corporate news monopoly press? And I wonder if something similar didn't happen to Don Seigelman, the Democratic governor of Alabama--and even to Rep. Jefferson, who claims that the money in his refrigerator was FBI money for a 'sting' operation against a foreign government (Nigeria). (Did Gonzales-corrupted FBI agents set him up?)

We get these insidious memes planted in our heads by the corporate news monopolies--that Siegelman is dirty, or that Jefferson is corrupt, or that Shelley is "misusing" federal election money. And then, if they can, they force the charges to become an investigatiion, a prosecution--if they have a compliant Bushbot state AG or U.S. Attorney. And if they luck out and get a Bushite judge, and/or a tainted enough jury pool (by the "case" being tried "in the newspapers") they can even convict, on the flimsiest of evidence.

Here's what Harper's says about the Seigelman case:

"The other really troubling aspect of the Siegelman case is the nature of the corruption that Ms. Martin claims the governor committed. He’s not accused of pocketing a single penny. Instead, the accusation against him is that he steered donors to pay down the debts of an organization that lobbied for a state lottery. If this is corruption, then it’s exactly the sort of corruption that Karl Rove is engaged in virtually every day, with total impunity from the Department of Justice. But Ms. Martin is seeking thirty years as a prison term for Siegelman – a sentencing request which only serves to confirm suspicions that she has used the case for partisan political purposes. As Joshua Micah Marshall points out, Siegelman’s offense (if it is an offense) is a bare peccadillo in comparison with what Duke Cunningham did (which was essentially to sell his vote and power as a senior member of Congress for fixed cash payments), but Cunningham got eight years. Ah, but we forget. There is a clear distinction to be drawn between these two public servants – Siegelman is a Democrat, and Cunningham is a Republican. Obviously the sentencing guidelines used by the Department of Justice now sport two columns: the first headed 'R,' and the second 'D and other.'

"In the end, however, it’s completely clear that the Siegelman case is about corruption. It’s just unclear that Siegelman is the corrupt party. That charge may come better to rest ultimately in the U.S. attorney’s office."

-------

It sounds very similar to the Shelley case. Prosecution (or other punishment, such as forcing someone from office) for, essentially, nothing. Because they have a 'D' in front of their name--or because they are actually doing their job, protecting the public interest. I don't know that much about Siegelman's policies. Shelley was making waves across the country with his suspicions about Diebold. He was setting the standard for how election officials SHOULD behave. So he was giving the Rovebots some special reasons to get rid of him.

The lesson from all this: We cannot trust ANYTHING the Bush government does. We cannot believe them on ANYTHING. In fact, the best course is to presume that WHATEVER they say, the opposite is true. Secondly, we cannot trust corporate news monopolies on ANYTHING, because they have been such easy tools of Rovian manipulation, and have in fact promulgated Bush regime lies, time and again. Also, I think maybe we need to look closer at Bushite prosecutions of Republicans, for efforts to silence, bully, bribe, intimidate, and manipulate their own people. I suspect the worst of Bushite Republicans, as to corruption--but we may not understand all of the subtle things that are going on, in a prosecution. Have they permitted such pervasive stinko corruption in their ranks on purpose, to be able to manipulate people? Have they deliberately recruited corruptible people to run for office? And, given what we now know about the U.S. Attorneys, how much can we trust the FBI, as to things like planting evidence, or the NSA, as to spying on people to find their weak points? And how can we be sure that a Bush-purged CIA--or some group we don't even know of--is not doing "black ops" and disinformation in the U.S. of A.?

And keep in mind that George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are still in charge of all powers of the executive branch including all military and police powers. They may be weakened, but they are not gone.