Why is the GOP Concerned About Donald Siegelman?
Donald Siegelman has been freed, basically because it appears his appeal has a substantial possibility of success on the facts. That indicates that he can prove that the GOP prosecuted with little basis in fact, and that the prosecution was politically motivated. The GOP, in the meantime, whined a bit.
Donald Siegelman has been freed from jail. As many know, Siegelman was Governor of Alabama and was prosecuted for giving a position on a Board in the state to a major contributor, Richard Scrushy. I suppose if we were doing a tit for tat thing, that would mean every major contributor President Bush appointed to Ambassadorships is up for investigation, but that’s not how the US DOJ was working under President Bush and Alberto Gonzales. Nope, they prosecuted only Democrats for that sort of thing, even when Senior preosecutors in their office counseled otherwise. Scott Horton in Harpers, over a year ago, noted, basically, that miscarriage of justice should be seen as obstruction of justice on the part of the Bush appointed US Attorneys.
A couple of interesting things here. First, Siegelman would not be released unless there were a strong possiblity his appeal would go through. From the Birmingham News:
The judges wrote that Siegelman met both requirements for an appeal bond: He is not a flight risk and his appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.
“After thorough review of this complex and protracted record, we conclude Siegelman has satisfied the criteria set out in the statute, and has specifically met his burden of showing that his appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact,” the judges wrote.
It’s going to be overturned, and we should have an investigation, a real one, into the role of the Bush Administration, Karl Rove in particular, in the prosecution here. I’m guessing the motive behind this selective prosecution was that the GOP felt threatened in their electoral bastion, the deep south. Be that as it may, the GOP claims they had not political role here, that Siegelman was prosecuted on the merits. Then why the heck do they have to act as if this is so godalmighty important to them, to the extent that they’re protesting the judge’s order? They’re protesting a whole whale of a lot for folks who claim they had no interest in the case. From WSFA in Alabama:
The Alabama Republican Party is disappointed in today’s ruling by the 11th Circuit Court and their decision to release former Governor Don Siegelman pending his appeal of the 6 counts of bribery and the 1 count of obstruction for which he was convicted.
Representative Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn), Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party stated “the former Governor’s release pending appeal does not change the conviction by a jury of his peers. It would be premature to turn this development into anything other than a formality.”
Hey, the smart move here, in a case where the GOP claims no political involvement, is to make no comment period. Nobody claimed the GOP in Alabama is smart. Notice, Mr. Hubbard, Karl Rove is sitting there with his mouth zipped, hoping to hell that no emails surface that show his involvement. You should do the same, Mr. Hubbard.
Have to disagree with you here….please, Mr. Hubbard, please keep on protesting. Grant interviews, lots of interviews. And consider calling in to radio talk shows too.
The ramifications of continued GOP rule of this country are quite obvious in this sham prosecution. You’re a democrat, then go to prison. This is why the GOP must be stopped at any cost. Karl Rove should be in prison. Bush and Cheney are war criminals who should be in prison awaiting execution for war crimes, treason, murder, torture, violations of the U. S. Constitution and violations of International Law. Period.
I am a left wing oriented, populist, Democrat who supports the politics of Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, and John Edwards.
I believe that the idea to prosecute Siegelman was a politically motivated set-up.
But I’m uncomfortable with commentary that makes believe that the justice system is one where a prosecutor sends a victim to jail without first having to get by a jury.
Siegelman would not have spent a day in jail had not the jury been persuaded by the evidence that was presented.
It is true that juries make bad mistakes, but to persistently overlook the very presence of the jury is pretty dumb and simply dishonest.
The prosecutor in this case could not have sent Siegelman to jail without the jury verdict.
Why is it that not one of the anti prosecution commentaries has ever once acknowledged this basic, essential fact ?
Jay, the issue here is not about the jury, which can only decide on the basis of the evidence that is presented in court. The Appeals Court has determined that the prosecution and/or the judge acted in such a way as to prevent the jury from having the information it neded to make an informed fair and just decision.
Mr. Hubbard:
Drop Dead.
Yr pal,
Tom
Jay, adding to what muldoon said: The prosecution’s star witness has admitted that his testimony was coached. They had him in over 35 times to write out his testimony because they were concerned that he wouldn’t get it straight. If you were telling the truth would you need that type of “prepation?”
Juries can be manipulated quite easily, that’s why we need to be sure that our prosecutors are above this type of thing. That’s why this needs to be very vigorously investigated.
You really need to pull your head out of the sand and join us in the real world.
Jay Diamond. Does the name O.J. conjure up any visions of jury trials to you?
I bet if you were connected enough to put the governor of the state in prison for no reason, that you might be able to round up 12 huckleberries who’d do your bidding. They got the judge, and the prosecutor on the team. If they can arrange that, they can arrange anything.
Jay, you are completely overlooking the prosecutor’s ability to shade the facts, to (with consent of the judge) exclude facts, to use rules of law to create a climate very hostile to the defendant. Also, 2001-2002 was the zenith of Bush approval, of national hysteria over terror attacs (the anthrax attacks, curiously, were targeted at two Democrat, only, senators, senators all but unknown outside of American politics), and when Bush and Rove were feeling pretty froggy about their hammerlock on American government - majorities in the House, Senate, Supreme Court, many state governments, and of course the White House and all agencies of US government. (and most of the federal judiciary to boot.)
(Senator Jefford’s COURAGEOUS defection gave Tom Dashle a slim majority in the senate, which gift he proceeded to toss in trash can by handing the Senate Enron investigation to the treacherous Joe Lieberman’s Govt. Affairs Committee, where Chairman Lieberman promptly QUASHED an energetic investigation, to give his fellow war-hawk, Dick Cheney, a break. Thereby ROBBING mid-term Democrats of their BEST ISSUE in 2002, the opportunity to TIE President Bush to Enron and Ken Lay, his #1 supporters through all of his election campaigns since his first run for Texas governor.)
Look at the Duke University rape case, and out-for-a-name prosecutor Niphong.
As I understand it, Siegelman was ‘guily’ of 1/3rd the violations of his Republican opponents… but the jury and defense were PROHIBITED from seeing that comparative evidence.
I’m just curious why progressive websites like, allspinzone.com , allow rightwingnuts to post their drivel yet freerepublic.com deletes anyone other than fellow rightwingsnuts.
Just try positing a message critical of the Bush Cheney Cabal on FreeRepublic.com and see what happens to your board priveldges:
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/focus/tag/news-forum/
Does anyone see the pattern here?
My comment reflected on the lack of any simple acknowledgement that a thing called a jury exists.
I invite J Snow to go back and read my post and explain just how he arrives at the conclusion that the man who wrote it is a “rightwingnut”.
I’ll help you….Here are the first two sentences:
“I am a left wing oriented, populist, Democrat who supports the politics of Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, and John Edwards.
I believe that the idea to prosecute Siegelman was a politically motivated set-up”.
I thank the other posters whose replies were intelligent and sane.
The selective prosecution of Siegelman was directed by Rove for at least two reasons beyond his being a threat to southern Republican rule. (1) Siegelman was a threat to run for national office in the future. (2) Siegelman was defeated in his last race for governor by obvious election fraud. The fact that he went public with his accusation sealed his fate.
Ska-T–Sort of like this year’s Democratic primary in New Hampshire:
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5506
Jay Diamond
There was a radio man by the name of Jay Diamond that did the best left wing talk radio that i have ever heard.
Hilarious jokes. Impressions that were so on the money they were scary. Political insight and commentary that was so powerful that it had Armstrong Williams admitting he was wrong 5 minutes after his interview with Jay started.
Radio is just a shadow of what it was when Jay was on it.
…My comment reflected on the lack of any simple acknowledgement that a thing called a jury exists. I invite J Snow to go back and read my post and explain just how he arrives at the conclusion that the man who wrote it is a “rightwingnut”. I’ll help you….Here are the first two sentences: “I am a left wing oriented, populist, Democrat who supports the politics of Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, and John Edwards. I believe that the idea to prosecute Siegelman was a politically motivated set-up”. I thank the other posters whose replies were intelligent and sane. Comment by Jay Diamond — March 29, 2008 @ 6:24 pm…
And the winner of the Free Republic Saboteur Award goes to (drum roll please…) :
Jay Diamond, Congratulations Jay, you have won a free one-way trip to hell where you will remain for eternity.
Best Regards from your benefactor,
Lucifer