http://www.atlargely.com/2008/03/alabama-prosecu.htmlAlabama prosecutor continues the Siegelman hunt...Louis Franklin, who works for the corrupt Alabama prosecutors office (See here) is arguing that Don Siegelman should stay in prison during his appeal. Franklin argues that Siegelman has no chance of winning the appeal, so therefor, no point in letting Siegelman out of
prison during the appeal process.
"Prosecutor Louis Franklin said the government believes Siegelman's attorneys have not shown that the former governor has a substantial chance of winning his case on appeal and therefore should remain in federal prison."
What Franklin does not tell the court is that he wants Siegelman to remain in jail and out of sight so no on asks tough questions of Franklin himself (emphasis mine):
"A U.S. Justice Department lawyer opposed efforts to continue the investigation of former Gov. Don Siegelman and argued to end the case in 2004, but he was overruled by Montgomery prosecutors, according to the lead government lawyer in the case.
Acting U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin, the Montgomery prosecutor who managed the government's case against Siegelman, said he assigned Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Feaga to the investigation in early 2004, and the two agreed to request a special grand jury that would hear evidence. But John W. Scott, a senior Justice Department trial lawyer who had been helping with the case at the request of Montgomery prosecutors, disagreed with the move to extend the investigation, Franklin said."
This was Franklin's argument in October 2007, when he tried to prove that his office, rather than "Washington," controlled the Siegelman case. Not much of an argument, is it?
But what about the allegations made by the prosecution's witness, Nick Bailey? If you recall, Bailey said that the prosecutor's office had him write out his testimony over and over because he could not keep his story straight. Franklin says this is not true:
"The program said the government had a key prosecution witness, former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey, repeatedly write out his testimony because prosecutors were frustrated with his recollection of events.
Vince Kilborn, an attorney for Siegelman who contends Republican politics was behind his prosecution, said the defense was never told of any written notes by Bailey. Lead prosecutor Louis Franklin said they never asked Bailey to write out his testimony."
Which is why any new scrutiny of the case might pose a problem for Franklin himself. But there is much more that Franklin has to worry about. Scott Horton of Harper's does a nice job of summarizing some of the problems with Franklin
HERE.
I have two questions for Franklin:
1. Did Mr. Franklin ever have dinner with Karl Rove in Washington DC during 2004 - 2007?
2. Did Mr. Franklin ever have dinner with Karl Rove in Alabama during 2004-2007?