Was Prosecution of Alabama Governor Politically Motivated?

donna | 6/17/2007 9:47 pm | Daily Briefing

One of the key questions regarding the ongoing U.S. attorney scandal is whether the justice system is being used to unfairly prosecute persons for political reasons. Was the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman an example of this?

As reported by Time Magazine, Dana Jill Simpson, in a sworn statement, described a conference call in which a plan to go after Siegelman was discussed. Simpson is an attorney who provided opposition research against Siegelman for Bob Riley, who ran against Siegelman in the 2002 governor's race. This election was extremely close, with Siegelman remaining in the lead and Riley pulling ahead for the win only after disputed votes were counted. When Siegleman demanded a recount, Riley held a conference call with attorneys for his campaign and William Canary, a senior official with the Republican Party. Canary also worked closely with Karl Rove on a series of campaigns in Alabama.

During the call, Riley's son asked "Siegelman's just like a cockroach, he'll never die, what are we going to do?" Canary told him "not to worry about Don Siegelman because his girls would take care of him". By "his girls", he meant his wife, Leura Canary, and Alice Martin, who were both U.S. attorneys in Alabama. Canary also explained that he "had already gotten it worked out with Karl and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice was already pursuing Don Siegelman". According to Simpson, there was no doubt that "Karl" was Karl Rove. She has phone records to back up her statement.

Charges were filed against Siegelman in Alice Walton's district in 2004, but they were dismissed. In Canary's district, however, Siegelman was charged with 32 counts.

The remaining seven counts related to a campaign donor, Richard Scrushy, who was also charged. Scrushy donated $500,000 to a campaign fund to establish a state lottery. Prosecutors say that, in return, he was given a seat on a state board, so this constituted a bribe. Defense attorneys say that Siegelman received no personal benefit from the campaign contribution. This money was used to retire the debt of the group that ran the campaign. Defense attorneys argued Scrushy also received no personal benefit from the appointment, and that he had been appointed to the same board by two previous governors. Siegelman's appointment merely extended the original term.

After finding Siegelman not guilty on 25 counts, the jury had a very hard time reaching a verdict on the remaining 7 counts. They declared themselves deadlocked twice, but the judge sent them back. Ultimately they decided to convict. The prosecutor is now recommending a prison sentence of 30 years. Scrushy was also convicted. He, too, was prosecuted last year on other charges and acquitted. (In contrast, Randy "Duke" Cunningham was convicted of much more serious crimes and was sentenced to just over eight years.)

I have no idea whether Siegelman and Scrushy actually committed crimes. If not, we may have two innocent men who have been put through hell because they crossed the wrong politicians. They have lost their careers and could be imprisoned for the rest of their lives.

If they are guilty, they now have grounds for appeal because of the evidence they were prosecuted for political reasons. They could avoid punishment for their crimes.

Either way, we lose. There is no reason whatsoever why the White House political director should be putting pressure on the Department of Justice to prosecute anyone, let alone a political opponent. The husband of a U.S. attorney should never have any influence over who "his girl" decides to prosecute. Our justice system should never be used as a weapon against political enemies. Even the appearance that this is being done completely undermines the public's confidence in our system of justice. That's what the U.S. attorney scandal is all about.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1627427,00.html

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060630/guilty.shtml

blog entry tag reference

corruption | democracy | politics

go to Daily Briefing | Digg this story | add to del.icio.us | print | email