Coverup in the Siegelman Case Now Extends to the U.S. Senate
LINK

While many Americans were preparing to eat barbecue and shoot fireworks for the Fourth of July, the U.S. Senate engaged in an extraordinary act of cowardice--not to mention neglect of duty.

The Senate approved by voice vote on June 30 the appointment of George Beck as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. Beck replaces Leura Canary, the Bush appointee who helped turn the Don Siegelman case into perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in American history.

But here's the kicker: Beck also played a prominent and highly questionable role in the Siegelman case. Beck's nomination was an opportunity for senators to grill a key figure in the Siegelman prosecution, to help determine how the U.S. justice system went badly off track in the Bush years.

The Senate, however, elected to punt, giving Beck a free pass into his new position and throwing an extra load of dirt onto a coverup of Bush-era criminality. For progressives who once had hope for the Barack Obama administration on justice matters, consider this: Beck is an Obama nominee, and the Senate is controlled by Democrats.

Have Democrats come to "own" Bush/Rove scandals that made a mockery of the U.S. constitution? It sure looks that way from here.

Why does the Beck "confirmation hearing" emit such a foul odor? Andrew Kreig, director of the D.C.-based Justice Integrity Project, provides answers in a splendid overview piece out today:

The U.S. Senate approved by voice vote June 30 a new U.S. attorney for Alabama, thereby extending a series of disgraces blighting the federal justice system in that state and nationally. The Senate voted to approve George Beck, 69, to run the Middle District office in Alabama’s capital city of Montgomery. The Senate failed to require that Beck, right, appear at a hearing to answer questions about a host of pending issues.

The most important question is how he could supervise personnel in that office who framed former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman after Beck himself represented the main witness who helped secure convictions. It remains as the nation’s most notorious political prosecution of the past decade. In 2008, CBS 60 Minutes reported that DOJ’s prosecutors coached and threatened Beck’s client Nick Bailey in up to 70 interrogations without required disclosure to the defense. Our Justice Integrity Project's four-part investigative series cited below explains further why Beck’s role is especially disturbing.


Is the Senate interested in actually serving the public, making sure that citizens understand how the justice system they fund went so haywire? Apparently not. Writes Kreig:

Confirmation hearings and trials are two of the rare moments when the public has a chance to learn the secrets of powerful figures in law enforcement via cross-examination. But the Senate shirked that process and rubber-stamped Beck. Siegelman’s 2006 conviction on corruption charges was enabled by the flagrant bias of a partisan Republican trial judge, Mark E. Fuller. He is the chief federal judge in the district. . . . As the trial and appeal moved forward, Fuller secretly obtained $300 million in Bush contracts for Doss Aviation, Inc., a closely held company the judge controls as by far its largest shareholder. The company primarily refuels Air Force planes and trains Air Force pilots, but also makes uniforms for military and civilian federal personnel. . . .

We and others have published countless stories about scandals associated with the Siegelman prosecution and his trial judge, Fuller. Among my investigative reports was one in 2009 describing sworn testimony that Republicans picked Fuller to frame Siegelman. We reported also that Republicans had a plan to steer a $35 billion Air Force contract for mid-air tanker refueling planes to Europe’s EADS, manufacturers of Airbus.


Beck was smack in the middle of the Siegelman fiasco, as lawyer for chief government witness Nick Bailey. Beck surely is aware that the entire process had alarming ties to the military-industrial complex. Writes Kreig:

Now 65, Siegelman is temporarily free on appeal bond, but faces resentencing by his nemesis Fuller. The paramilitary undercurrents in the Siegelman case are especially disturbing. The federal government created a special anti-Siegelman strike force headquartered at an Air Force base and led by an Air Force colonel in the reserves. The prosecution took Bailey there for interrogation, helping foster an unusual climate of fear. That climate is especially powerful if one reads 2009 affidavits by Bailey and his friends describing how federal prosecutors pressured Bailey, in serious legal jeopardy because of crimes unrelated to Siegelman, by offering him leniency as well as threatening to expose his sexual partners if he did not do what they wanted. To be fair to Beck, one can argue that he sought and obtained the best deal possible for his client and has remained silent since for those reasons. But the immense discretion and powers of a U.S. attorney require more vetting on overall notions of justice than mere loyalty to one client.


Why did Obama nominate Beck in the first place? Apparently it's because he's been listening to so-called Democrats such as Birmingham lawyer G. Douglas Jones. Jones perhaps has been Beck's most outspoken supporter, and it's curious that both men have clear ties to Republican elites, as we outlined in a previous post:

Jones' public statements about the Beck nomination reflect significant foot shuffling and dissembling. Could that be because George Beck represented chief government witness Nick Bailey in the Siegelman/Scrushy case and reportedly allowed prosecutors to browbeat and coach his client? Could it be because Beck comes from the Montgomery law firm of Capel and Howard, which has strong ties to GOP strategist Karl Rove and Bill Canary, who is president of the Business Council of Alabama, husband of Leura Canary, and confidant of U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief Tom Donahue?


Doug Jones supports a lawyer from a firm that has ties to Karl Rove, Bill Canary, and Tom Donahue? Sheesh, with "leaders" like that, the Alabama Democratic Party surely will continue to spiral right down the toilet. To top it off, Jones worked with Homewood attorney Rob Riley, son of former GOP governor Bob Riley, on a federal HealthSouth lawsuit that raked in more than $50 million in attorney fees. Has that been good for the cause of justice in Alabama? Almost certainly not:

This scenario becomes particularly troubling when you consider that the other co-liaison counsel in the HealthSouth case--Jones' chief local assistant--was Rob Riley, the son of former Republican Governor Bob Riley. Why did Doug Jones need Rob Riley on the lawsuit team? Probably because Riley had inside information about former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. And that information probably came from Riley's involvement in a Republican conspiracy to conduct a political prosecution against Siegelman and Scrushy, a scheme that Alabama attorney and whistleblower Dana Jill Simpson revealed to the world.

Should progressives be concerned about Doug Jones' willingness to make money by jumping in bed with a member of the Riley clan? What about Jones' apparent determination to now push tainted nominees to a Democratic administration?


Obama has a background as a constitutional scholar. But the Beck nomination, and the Senate's unquestioning acceptance of it, indicates our leaders (of both parties) do not give a rip about such concepts as "due process" and "equal protection" under the law.

How ugly was Beck confirmation and the process that led up to it? We encourage readers to examine Andrew Kreig's recent four-part series on the subject. And it's important to keep a key point in mind: This no longer is just a Bush/Rove production; Obama and other Democrats now are engaged in what appears to be a coordinated effort to ensure that the public is kept in the dark about unsavory matters connected to the U.S. Justice Department.

Here are links to the Justice Integrity Project series:

Part One: Senate Must Grill Tainted Alabama DOJ Nominee

Part Two: Bailey, Beck and Siegelman Frame-Up

Part Three: Beck's DOJ Backers Make Their Case

Part Four: What To Do About Obama's Alabama Snafu?

Thursday, May 19, 2011
Did a GOP Conspiracy Target Both Don Siegelman and Gray Davis?
LINK

The same Republican plot that sparked the Don Siegelman prosecution might also have led to the downfall of former California Governor Gray Davis. Siegelman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama, raised the issue in interviews after last week's ruling from the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld most of his convictions from a 2006 corruption trial.

We have reported that the Eleventh Circuit ignored U.S. Supreme Court precedent by holding that a campaign-related transaction between Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy amounted to bribery, even though no "explicit agreement" was involved. McCormick v. Unites States is the binding case on a charge of bribery in the campaign context, and that requires that prosecutors prove that an "explicit agreement" existed. Mark Fuller, the Bush-appointed judge who oversaw the Siegelman trial, did not hold prosecutors to such a standard, and the Eleventh Circuit essentially said, "Ah, that's OK . . . close enough."

So much for the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that supposedly applies in American criminal law.

Siegelman and I appeared on The Peter B. Collins Show to discuss the latest twists in a case that has become perhaps the best-known political prosecution in American history. You can listen to a podcast of the interview by clicking here.

Don Siegelman

Collins is based in San Francisco, and Siegelman noted parallels between his own experience in Alabama and the experience of Gray Davis in California. Davis was elected governor in 1998, held strong poll numbers throughout his first term, and was re-elected in 2002. But his approval ratings began to sink when a budget crisis and deregulation in the electricity industry led to widespread instability in California.

Davis' opponents spent some $66 million to stage a recall election in 2003, and Davis wound up being removed from office. He was replaced by Republican and film star Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has been in the news lately for events that have nothing to do with politics.

Why would Republicans target both Siegelman and Davis in 2002-03? Siegelman told Peter B. Collins that it all had to do with presidential politics. "Al Gore had decided he was not going to seek the nomination in 2004, and Gray Davis was the leading Democratic candidate for president at that time," Siegelman said. "I was a friend of Gray Davis, and I was thinking about entering presidential primaries in the South, to challenge George W. Bush.

"An interesting parallel is that one of Karl Rove's best friends, Grover Norquist, was at work in California to do in Gray Davis--and also was at work in Alabama to cause me trouble."

Both Siegelman and Davis had been involved in litigation against the tobacco industry, which also might have helped make them targets for Rove and his allies at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Rove and others who were planning Bush's 2004 re-election campaign apparently were concerned about facing popular Democratic governors from the West and the South. After Davis and Siegelman went down, Bush wound up facing U.S. Senator John Kerry, of Massachusetts.

Siegelman picked up on this theme in an interview with Thom Hartmann. "The common thread between Gray Davis and Don Siegelman being taken down is Grover Norquist, who was one of Karl Rove's best friends from college. Rove wanted Gray Davis and me out of the way, so they could have a field of other Democratic candidates to contend with."

Siegelman expressed frustration at the Obama administration's refusal to hold Rove and others accountable for using the U.S. Justice Department as a political weapon during the Bush years. "The White House let Rove off the hook when they worked a deal with Congress that didn't require him to testify under oath. We've got to hold these people accountable. If they can prosecute me for a non-crime, they can do this to anybody in the country. We need to get it straightened out for the security of our democracy, as well as for my own freedom."

I told Collins that last week's ruling from the Eleventh Circuit indicates politics still is playing a leading role in the Siegelman case, almost five years after the trial. "In my view, Governor Siegelman and his codefendant, Richard Scrushy, were convicted of a crime that doesn't exist under the law. . . . It appears the Eleventh Circuit is trying to keep a thread of the conviction out there, to give some legitimacy to what happened in Montgomery, Alabama."

I also said that the Eleventh Circuit's failure to uphold Supreme Court precedent could signal a far more serious crime than anything alleged in the Siegelman case. "If this three-judge panel is being influenced by someone external to the process, that amounts to obstruction of justice. (18 U.S.C. 1503.) There also is a statute about interference with governmental operations that might apply. (That statute actually is 18 U.S.C. 371--Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.) That's where the real crime is here.

"It's clear that what Governor Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy did is not a crime under U.S. law. I hope the public will examine this 65-page document (from the Eleventh Circuit) and see what a joke it is compared to the actual law. Then, someone should look at these judges, their e-mails and external communications. Someone is pulling their strings."

TPMMuckraker
Supreme Court Orders Review Of Siegelman Conviction By Lower Court
Justin Elliott, June 29, 2010, 10:40AM
LINK

The Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to take a new look at the controversial conviction of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman in the wake of its ruling last week narrowing the scope of a key public corruption statute that was used in the Siegelman case.

Siegelman was convicted in 2006 on charges of bribery and honest services fraud, the statute that was limited by the court last week. Siegelman was found to have given former HealthSouth executive Richard Scrushy a seat on a state board regulating hospitals in exchange for $500,000 in donations to a state lottery campaign.

The former governor did nine months in prison before being released pending appeal in the case, which has been plagued by allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.

This is the court's order in full today with respect to Scrushy v. US and Siegelman v. US:

The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. ___ (2010)."

Siegelman's challenge of the conviction hinges on whether prosecutors proved there was bribery versus a legal political transaction in his dealings with Scrushy. The court ruled in the Skilling case last week that the honest services fraud statute only covers explicit "bribery and kickback schemes," not less clear-cut cases.

The Wall Street Journal notes, though, that Siegelman is not yet in the clear:

The high-court's decision to send the cases back for further proceedings at the appeals court doesn't necessarily mean that the men's convictions will be affected.

Messrs. Scrushy and Siegelman argued they shouldn't have been convicted of bribery because there was no explicit promise that Mr. Scrushy would receive the board appointment in exchange for the contributions.

TPMmuckraker's past coverage of the case is here.