Showdown on Siegelman Case

donna | 7/01/2008 9:47 pm | Daily Briefing

In the 2002 election Don Siegelman, Democratic governor of Alabama, narrowly lost his re-election bid to his Republican opponent, Bob Riley, after federal prosecutors leaked stories to the press about investigations involving Siegelman. In 2004 Siegelman decided to run again. Soon after, federal prosecutors indicted him for involvement in a Medicare scam. The judge threw the case out after opening arguments, saying "there's no case here". The damage was done, however, and Riley was re-elected. In 2006, Siegelman had been cleared by the courts of any wrong-doing, so he decided to run again. Federal prosecutors indicted Siegelman on new charges and the jury deadlocked twice. Finally, they convicted on the third try. Siegelman was immediately sent to prison. Siegelman and his attorneys provided evidence this was a political prosecution and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed there is a "substantial question of law or fact likely to result in a reversal or a new trial".

The case was so troubling that 52 former attorneys-general from both parties wrote a letter to Congress to investigate whether this was a political prosecution. The House Judiciary Committee is investigating this plus at least two other potential political prosecutions. Georgia Thompson, a civil service employee for the State of Wisconsin, was convicted of rigging a bid to award a contract to a contributor to Governor Jim Doyle's campaign. Her conviction was later overturned by a court, which said the evidence was "beyond thin". The third case is that of Dr. Cyril Wecht, coroner from Pennsylvania. The Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility has also decided to open an investigation into these and other potential cases of political prosecution.

Republican operative and attorney Jill Simpson has testified before the committee that Karl Rove hired her to do opposition research on Siegelman. Eventually she was told by Bill Canary, an associate of Rove and a Republican consultant working on the Riley campaign, that "his girls" would take care of Siegelman. When she asked who "his girls" were, he responded "Oh, my wife, Leura. You know, she's the Middle District United States Attorney. And then Alice Martin, She is the Northern District Attorney, and I've helped with her campaign". Leura Canary's office handled the 2006 prosecution.

The Judiciary Committee would like to ask Karl Rove about Simpson's testimony and asked him to appear voluntarily before them. Although he is willing to talk to the press about Simpson's statement, he refuses to come before Congress and testify under oath. Now the committee has issued a subpoena, demanding that he testify before them on July 10. When he was issued a subpoena by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the investigation of the firings of U.S. attorneys, Rove did not comply with the subpoena because the White House claimed executive privilege.

The Senate only has one option for enforcing a subpoena. The Civil Contempt of the Senate Statute results in this being sent to the U.S. District Court. The court will decide whether Rove, Harriet Meiers, and Josh Bolten will need to testify.

The House Judiciary Committee has more options available to it than the Senate. If Rove chooses to ignore this subpoena, he can be charged with either criminal or civil contempt. The committee can ask the Department of Justice to prosecute Rove criminally for contempt of Congress. Since the statute allowing this was passed in 1857, every person except one who claimed executive privilige dropped the claim and cooperated as soon as the committee voted to pursue a contempt charge. This path could certainly be tried with Rove, but the Bush administration may try to block this. The Department of Justice may refuse to prosecute and/or Bush could use his pardon power to stop the prosecution.

This leaves Congress with one remaining tool in their toolbox. Inherent contempt power was used regularly from 1795 until the criminal contempt statute was passed in 1857. This power has not been used since 1935. It may be time to dust it off.

Under the inherent contempt power, Congress can order the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Rove and bring him before the committee. He would be forced to stay in a jail cell located in the Capitol until he cooperates.

Will Rove show up to testify on July 10? Or will he ignore another subpoena? If he does, Chairman John Conyers has promised to do "what any self-respecting committee would do. We'll hold him in contempt. Either that or go have him arrested." Will he go through with it? Who will blink first?

Mr. Rove has told the press that he has nothing to hide, so I hope he changes his mind and testifies under oath on July 10. If he again decides to defy a subpoena, Congressman Conyers should not back down. He needs to follow through with either criminal or inherent contempt charges. This is a valid investigation requested by 52 former attorneys-general from both parties. Innocent people may have been put in prison for political reasons. Rove has information that could be critical in getting to the bottom of this. If Congress backs down in this case, then it's hard to see how they can continue in the future to perform oversight of the executive branch. They need to stand up, regardless of the political fall-out.

60 Minutes Report on Siegelman case:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830.shtml

Summary of Congress Contempt Powers:

http://www.acsblog.org/separation-of-powers-crs-explains-congresss-contempt-powers.html

blog entry tag reference

corruption | democracy | politics

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