posted by: John MacDougall

Pam. Congratulations to you and your persistently effective efforts to get Governor Seigelman a fair chance at justice. As far as I know, you were the very first to act in his defense when all the odds seemed stacked against him. Little by little, you caught the attention of some of the media in this state and then elsewhere. Now, I think there are at least several other websites that are following your example and leadership. Today, in the New York Times, the lead editorial also joined you in calling for justice in the case of Governor Seigelman. I congratulate you for all your hard and I'm sure costly labors on behalf of justice and democracy for all. John MacDougall

Mark Fuller and the Siegelman Case

Mark Fuller and the Siegelman Case
Scott Horton No Comment July 31, 2007
Over the last two months I have examined many different aspects of the Justice Department’s prosecution of former Governor Don E. Siegelman. The controversy around Karl Rove and the Justice Department is often cast as a scandal concerning the U.S. attorneys and the prosecutorial function. But the scandal actually has more to do with the administration of justice—and thus with the role of the judiciary.
As I noted, four federal judges have played a role in the Siegelman case—two of them served as prosecutors, building and bringing the case, and two in hearing the charges. Of the latter group, the one who claims title to being “Siegelman’s judge” is Mark Everett Fuller. Fuller presided over Governor Siegelman’s trial and sentenced him to prison.
In a series of posts starting today and continuing over the next couple of weeks, I am going to examine Fuller’s role in the Siegelman case: who is he? How did he come to be a federal judge? How did he conduct the trial? The Siegelman case, I believe, offers us great insight into the broader issue of the politicization of the criminal justice process, an issue that is front and center in the American political dialogue today.
First, Some BackgroundIn 2002, Don Siegelman lost the governorship of Alabama to Bob Riley by 3,000 votes, raising suspicions of electronic vote tampering. According to an affidavit11. The affidavit was filed in connection with an Eleventh Circuit appeal, arguing that Terry Butts, who appeared as a lawyer in the Scrushy/Siegelman case, had previously worked for Governor Riley. by lifelong Republican Dana Jill Simpson, on November 18, 2002, soon after Siegelman’s defeat, a conference call was held among Bob Riley’s senior aides, and during the call William Canary, a prominent Alabama Republican, said “not to worry about Don Siegelman” because “his girls”— meaning two U.S. attorneys, Alice Martin and Canary’s wife Leura, both of whom subsequently indicted Siegelman—would “take care” of the governor; furthermore, Karl Rove was described as “pursuing” Siegelman with help from U.S. attorneys in Alabama. (Time has a thorough article on the issue, with a response from Canary.)
In November 2003, one year after Siegelman’s defeat, the Mobile Press-Register published a poll showing that in the event of a rematch between Riley and Siegelman, Siegelman would prevail.22. Bill Barrow, “Riley’s Ratings are Low: Governor Would Trail Moore, Siegelman in 2006 Race,” Mobile Press-Register, Nov. 16, 2003, p. 6.. I spoke with sources within the Alabama GOP who told me that this poll set off alarm bells and was cause for a number of meetings and discussions about how to deal with the “Siegelman problem.” Before long, I believe, a solution to that problem manifested itself in the form of an indictment.
The Tuscaloosa CaseIn May 2004, Alice Martin brought the case on claims that Governor Siegelman, with two other men, had been involved in an effort to rig bids on a state project in Tuscaloosa. After a series of recusals, the case came before the Chief Judge of the Northern District, U.W. Clemon, in Birmingham. As reported in the Montgomery Advertiser, Martin was opposed to Clemon handling the case and attempted to force his recusal. Clemon, however, rejected the Justice Department’s request that he step aside. He also refused to allow the defense to portray the proceedings as a “political conspiracy,” but also expressed skepticism that the government had enough evidence to make out a case of conspiracy, which was the principal count. In my analysis of the case, I found that Clemon asked penetrating questions of the prosecutors, and when their answers reinforced his suspicions, he demanded that they present a prime facie showing of their case before allowing the matter to proceed. When they were unable to do this, Judge Clemon dismissed the conspiracy case with prejudice, and with that, the first effort to prosecute Siegelman imploded in October 2004.
Enter Mark FullerBut there was more to come. In October 2005, federal prosecutors indicted Siegelman on new corruption charges in Montgomery, Alabama, a different judicial district distinct from the Northern Alabama district in which Clemon had previously dismissed similar charges without prejudice. In theory, federal judges are assigned to cases at random. But according to a well-placed Alabama GOP source who wishes to remain anonymous, some senior figures in the Alabama GOP appear to have known from the start that this case was going to be handled by a man they counted a friend, namely, George W. Bush–appointee Mark Fuller. Regardless of whether the GOP had the power to influence case assignments, Mark Everett Fuller was in fact assigned as judge who presided over the grand jury proceedings in this second effort to prosecute Siegelman.
Fuller was born in 1958 into a well-to-do family with an entrenched position in Alabama Republican politics. I spoke with some of his former college classmates, none of who wanted to be named. They described him as a decent student—though never an intellectual standout. Fuller was a member of the Tuscaloosa chapter of the Kappa Sigma fraternity. He is repeatedly described as being right at the center of the University of Alabama’s fraternity culture, and all who recall him remember that he was very deeply involved in Alabama Republican politics.
Fuller was nominated by President Bush and confirmed to the federal bench in November 2002. His nomination proved completely uneventful, and he was whisked through the review process. While Washington, D.C.-based organizations like People for the American Way and the Alliance for Justice were prepared for battle over Bush judicial nominations, Fuller himself was not a target.
Prior to his appointment in 2002, Fuller had no meaningful judicial experience, but he had served for five years as a prosecutor as District Attorney for Alabama’s 12th Judicial Circuit. So while his qualifications were fairly thin—he had neither judicial nor federal prosecutorial experience, which are usually considered desirable for candidates for a federal judgeship—his experience met the minimal threshold for a federal judgeship. Significantly, he had solid backing from the Alabama Congressional delegation—from its two Republican senators, and from Alabama’s powerful Second District Congressman, Terry Everett, Fuller’s mentor.
Next… the Fuller-Everett Relationship
Evan Magruder contributed to this post.
Subjects: Siegelman, Don
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000675

Election Night 2002: That's the Night That the Lights Went Out in Bama

The changing of the guards: Bay Minette, election night
By Steve McConnell Staff Reporter(Created: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:03 PM CDT)
Nearly five years later, the specter of the 2002 Alabama gubernatorial election lives on.
Republican Bob Riley edged out a narrow victory over incumbent Democrat Don Siegelman, but a midnight vote recount in Baldwin County, giving Riley the edge, stirred a firestorm controversy that still receives national attention to this day.   A recent New York Times editorial called into question “suspicious vote tabulations” that may have occurred at the Sheriff’s department in Bay Minette – the county seat - shortly after 11 p.m., the eve of election day, Nov. 5, 2002.And, Time Magazine published an article entitled “Rove Linked to Prosecution of Ex-Alabama Governor” by Adam Zagorin which touched on a controversial computer glitch: “Though Republican Riley…initially found himself behind by several thousand votes, he had pulled ahead at the last minute when disputed ballots were tallied in his favor.”Glynn Wilson, a former Christian Science Monitor correspondent who now publishes and writes for his news site locustfork.net, posted a piece in June stating that Dan Gans - Riley’s chief of staff during the would-be governor’s time as a U.S. Representative for Alabama’s 3rd District – electronically changed the results, giving a razor thin edge to Riley, who went on to win the state by 3,120 votes.An unidentified source, according to his report “How the 2002 Election Was Stolen in Bay Minette,” reported that Gans was at the county courthouse and that he was “interested” in the final vote results.Gans, who was assisting Riley’s gubernatorial campaign at the time and then went on to serve as his Montgomery chief of staff, later left the governor’s office to join the Alexander Strategy Group, a top Washington lobbying firm that disbanded in 2006 due to ties with incarcerated lobbyist Jack Abramoff.Harper’s Magazine columnist Scott Horton also claimed that Gans “is a Republican ‘voting technology expert’ who played a mysterious role in the 2002 gubernatorial election.” Horton’s column “Abramoff and ‘Justice’ in the Heart of Dixie,” published June 9, went on to say that Gans “was in Republican controlled Bay Minette, Alabama, when 6,000 votes inexplicably shifted from Siegelman’s column to Riley’s due to a ‘computer glitch.’”(Gans denies any involvement with switching votes later in this report).What were exactly the chain of events which continues to irk Democrats, Siegelman supporters, election analysts and the national press when the power of the highest office in Alabama shifted in the middle of the night from incumbent Don Siegelman to Bob Riley?On the eve of the election, the Siegelman camp believed the governor had secured enough votes in Baldwin County to win the election, but evidently a “glitch,” according to probate court officials, caused Siegelman to lose 6,334 votes from his tally.Riley, due to the “glitch,” barely edged out the Democratic governor, who was considered a threat by Republican officials.The following morning a recount seemed reasonable and evident to the Siegelman campaign as two men laid claim to the governorship.But, the recount was denied by then Attorney General William “Bill” Holcombe Pryor, who was appointed Feb. 20, 2004 - during a congressional recess - to the federal-bench, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush.Siegelman conceded November 18, and Riley was sworn in as governor January 21, 2003 at the state capital in Montgomery.Today and for the unforeseeable future, Siegelman will remain in prison due to a lengthy and controversial federal investigation; although, his prosecution – now being deemed a “persecution” in some circles - was referred to House Judicial Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), by U.S. Representative Artur Davis, (D-AL), as a possible example of selective prosecution by the Department of Justice.Siegelman was sentenced June 28 to more than seven years in prison mainly on charges that he appointed HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to a state hospital regulatory board – an appointment he served with three previous governors – in exchange for Scrushy’s $500,000 donation to a Siegelman campaign supporting a state lottery to fund education.Scrushy was sentenced to six years and 10 months.While the election seems at best a distant memory for the history books perhaps, the Bay Minette debacle certainly turned the tides of power, disavowing Siegelman of the governor’s office as federal investigations into his political career swelled.Bay Minette – Nov 5, 2002: Election Night William L. Pfeifer, chairman of the Baldwin County Democratic Party, a minority group then and now in this staunchly Republican county, was sitting in the Sheriff’s department break room waiting for the much anticipated results - a gubernatorial fight that both parties knew would be very close.Siegelman, the Southern Democrat who previously held the state offices of secretary of state, attorney general and lieutenant governor, defeated incumbent Republican Forrest Hood “Fob” James in 1998 for the governorship and nearly took the county that year: 17, 389 for Siegelman versus 21,004 for James.“We didn’t expect Siegelman to win Baldwin County, but we certainly expected him to do better than the typical results for a Baldwin County Democratic candidate,” Pfeifer said in an interview on July 12.“Riley did very well…I think he did better than Fob James in terms of having support around the state, but it still would make sense that most of Siegelman’s supporters from ’98 would vote for him in the 2002 election.”In a nearby room, officials processed – or tabulated – data packs that contained digital results from the voting precincts.When the polls were open, voters marked papers ballots that were slid through optical scanning machines. The machines converted the paper ballot votes into digital data, which was recorded on individual data packs from each precinct throughout the county.Then when the polls closed, the data packs were picked up at the precincts by Sheriff’s deputies, who delivered them to their office - a standard procedure.Once all the packs were received, election officials inserted them into a tabulating computer which processed the results, producing a document called the “unofficial summary report.”“It’s unofficial because it hasn’t been certified but (the results) are supposed to be the same numbers that will be certified. The only change that should happen from these numbers and the final numbers (is) if there are some votes that haven’t arrived yet” such as absentee votes, Pfeifer said.But, the first report delivered at 10:45 p.m. to Pfeifer and other representatives from the Republican and Democratic parties in the break room revealed a glaring error: Libertarian candidate John Sophocleus somehow attained 13,190 votes, nearly 24 percent of the county gubernatorial total, beating Siegelman’s count of 11,820, while Riley held about 54 percent of the vote at 30,142.“When we were calling in the results…as soon as we got to the John Sophocleus number, it was pretty obvious that something was wrong,” Pfeifer recalled, adding that “someone” with the Sheriff’s department went back to the tabulation room and returned saying that “they figured out the problem.”Pfeifer could not identity who was tabulating the votes.“We weren’t standing there over their shoulders watching…we’re sitting in an adjoined room just waiting for a printout,” he said.Pfeifer recalled that Baldwin County Probate Judge Adrian Johns was present during the tabulations, although he could not verify if Johns was there for the entire session.“They didn’t say what the problem was but they said that they fixed it,” Pfeifer said, and at 11:04 p.m., the report that received all the attention in media outlets throughout the nation – the Sophocleus report remains virtually unknown – was delivered: Sophocleus total was reduced to an expected 937 votes, Siegelman’s was upped to 19,070, and Riley’s was slightly increased to 31,052, according to the reports obtained by the Onlooker.“These were the numbers that we were told were correct,” he said, and the summary report print-out was given to Associated Press and local media reporters and officials with both parties.“Everything was being locked up for the night…we all thought it was over (and) looking at these numbers this was about what we could have expected it to be, no one expected Siegelman to carry Baldwin County.”At that time, he recalled, the county was one of the last in the state to report results.With 19,070 votes in Baldwin County, Siegelman would have remained as governor.The Third ReportReturning home from Bay Minette, Pfeifer, a self described political junkie, watched the election wrap-up on TV, but he was intrigued with the broadcast’s confusion over discrepancies in the vote totals.“I’m sitting there on the couch with these two printouts sitting beside me thinking I may have some idea of what’s happening here,” he said in reference to Sophocleus unexpected 13,190 votes in the first report and the second report that corrected his total to 937 while upping Siegelman’s to more than 19,000.But, the coverage did not mention the Sophocleus mishap.Instead, a third report was posted on the county probate court’s website at 11:06 p.m. -according to the site’s timestamp which specifies when new results are placed on the internet – showing that Siegelman’s tally was changed again, reduced to 12,736, a difference of 6,334 from the second report.Media outlets were picking up the changes between the second and third reports, Pfeifer said, and Riley now had a slight edge in the state.Pfeifer and Siegelman supporters gathered in Bay Minette the following morning trying to make sense of three separate results, especially the final tally which pushed Riley ahead of Siegelman.Around 8 a.m., they made their way over to the probate court building where reporters and lawyer’s from both parties were “milling around,” Pfeifer said, and he attempted to speak with probate officials in charge of the election – the canvassing board which included the probate judge, a representative from the Sheriff’s department and the clerk of court – in order to figure out the sudden change in Siegelman’s results.He said their office doors were closed, and he presumed they were “trying to figure out what happened.”“No one could get back there to talk to the members of the panel for most of that time, and we didn’t get to actually speak to them until just a few minutes before they went out and did the certification,” Pfeifer said.Just before the certification, he did speak with the board and tried to “persuade them to wait until Friday at noon (for final certification) like the statue said so that there was time to get this sorted out.”The county canvassing board, in this election, had until Friday at noon to certify the results. Certification can, however, occur before that deadline.“They were very insistent,” he said, “that the results were correct and that they were going to certify them that morning.”After 10:30 a.m., Pfeifer said that the board certified the election results, and around 11 a.m., Riley gave his victory speech in Montgomery. Johns has held firm to this day that "a programming glitch in the software,” which he reported to the AP that morning, effected Siegelman’s tally and that the third report is unquestionably correct.He was quoted by countless reporters for at least a week, reiterating the canvassing board’s conclusion that a glitch during the tabulation process was responsible for the error. (See Bob Morgan's report: a recent interview with Probate Judge Adrian Johns where he describes the events that affected the results).Pfeifer does not hold the position that anyone altered Siegelman’s votes, but he felt a recount was reasonable considering the circumstances.“My position has always been I don’t know what happened. It just always seemed to me that when the same set of data produces three different results in one night, you need to have a recount. That’s not accusing anyone of fraud, all that is saying is the obvious…it’s just common sense,” he said.The Changes, the Glitch and Dan GansComparing the first and second summary reports, three races – state senate district 22, state representative district 64 and state representative district 66 – had the exact same tallies on both reports.But, in five races – lieutenant governor, U.S. Senate (Sessions), U.S. Representative (Bonner), attorney general and state senate district 32 – votes changed from the first report – the Sophocleus anomaly - to the “fixed” second report with some candidates’ tallies adjusting by about 100 to 1,300 votes, but without affecting the overall outcome of the race.For example, Democrat Lucy Baxley’s tally changed from 13,375 in the first report to 13,722 while her opponent, Republican Bill Armistead, dropped from 30,209 to 29,802.However, comparing the second report and the probate court’s website post, which became the certified results, none of the tallies changed, except Siegelman’s reduction from 19,070 to 12,736 - even Sophocleus remained at 937.James H. Gundlach, a professor of sociology at Auburn University, remains convinced that “electronic ballot box stuffing” occurred and that it is highly possible an individual with some computer programming knowledge accessed the tabulating computer, either directly or indirectly with a wireless connection, and changed the tallies.His paper, “A Statistical Analysis of Possible Electronic Ballot Box Stuffing,” presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the Alabama Political Science Association, makes a firm case that through “relatively simple statistical techniques” one can “identify apparent systematic electronic manipulation of voting results.”“I make the case that this is an extremely suspicious vote,” he said in a phone interview on July 11, adding that he still stands with his findings to this day and that statisticians at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that his paper was the “strongest statistical evidence of election theft they’ve seen.”He suspects that someone altered the tabulating computer’s software, allowing votes to be reduced from Siegelman’s tally.Among deeper analysis presented in the paper, he pointed to a simple example: the incumbent’s vote shift from 19,070 to 12,736 raises suspicions since it is a nearly one-third reduction which is “commonly found in data that is intentionally changed but rarely the result of random errors.”As for the “glitch,” Gundlach adamantly disagrees with the probate court’s explanation of how Siegelman’s tally dropped.“The circumstances surrounding it are really hard to believe,” he said. “The notion that the software is designed to count votes, (but that it) comes up with different results means somebody is messing with the software.”The glitch, he said, is “just made up stuff, just like the dog eating the homework.”“Computers do not accidentally produce different totals,” he stated in the paper. “Someone is controlling the computer to produce the different results.”And that person is not Dan Gans, according to a phone interview with Gans on July 13.“I’ve never been to Bay Minette, Alabama in all my life,” Gans said, and on election night, when the election results changed three times, he said: “I was at the (Riley’s) planned victory celebration in Talladega.”Talladega, known for its NASCAR superspeedway, is approximately 50 miles east of Birmingham in central Alabama and about 225 miles north of Bay Minette.After Alexander Strategy Group’s (ASG) dissolution in 2006, Gans co-founded Polaris Government Relations, a Washington-based lobbying firm.Reports that Gans altered the election seem to be partly tied to his ASG internet bio which stated that he “implemented a state of the art ballot security program that was critical to securing Governor-elect Riley’s narrow margin of victory (3,120 votes).”Gans, who assisted Riley’s 2002 campaign, said that the ballot security program was their effort to ensure that the election went smoothly state-wide such as monitoring some locations that were predicted to have a close vote margin between Siegelman and Riley.He admits that the statement, written by the ASG public relations staff, was over the top, but the meaning, he said, has nothing to do with securing or rigging the Bay Minette election.“We simply had attorneys at polling places throughout the state…as a safeguard,” Gans said, adding that some locations had poll watchers while others had attorneys “in case there was an issue.He also said poll watchers called-in the unofficial results from the polling precincts to the Riley campaign headquarters and relayed updates throughout the day such as voter turnout. “We anticipated a close election (and) the Riley camp decided to take a more proactive role,” Gans said. “I think it became more in vogue after the 2000 elections.”Recount? On Nov. 8, two days after the county canvassing board certified the votes, William L. Pfeifer issued a petition to the board for a manual recount of all paper ballots cast for the governor’s race, citing the Alabama Administrative Code, Electronic Vote Counting Systems section, which states that “any person may petition a county canvassing authority for a recount of any or all precinct returns for offices in the election that the person was a qualified elector.”Under that law, Pfeifer, as a qualified elector, was required to post a security bond to the cover the costs of the recount, and if the board’s certified results were correct, the bond along with any additional recount costs would be his responsibility.According to the petition submitted and signed at about 9 a.m. by the three members of the board – the deputy sheriff, clerk of court and probate judge - the “petitioner shows that the electronic equipment used in tabulating the results of (the) election malfunctioned, and that there is grave doubt whether such machines or their software is reliable.”Pfeifer said that the Democratic Party issued petitions in all 67 counties asking for recounts (not all counties used optical scanning machines), but “in Baldwin County in particular, we actually asked for a manual recount (of the paper ballots) because of what appeared to be a number of problems with the equipment.”Section 307-X-1.21 of the administrative code states that “the recount must be conducted under the supervision of a trained and certified poll official and/or Probate Judge of the County” and that “the box or envelope holding the ballots shall be delivered unopened to the supervising official in charge of the re-count.”But before Baldwin County’s canvassing board could make a determination for a recount, Attorney General Bill Pryor issued an opinion that same day, citing Alabama’s constitution, that the sealed paper ballots could not be counted unless a court orders to break the seal.Unless an election contest was filed in the courts by Siegelman or a grand jury investigation was formed, county canvassing board’s throughout the state did not have the authority “to break the seals on ballots and machines under section 17-9-31” of the constitution.And, the opinion said it would be a crime to break the seals.“The attorney general is the top law enforcement official in the state, and therefore if the attorney general says opening these boxes is a criminal offense, then of course that sends word down the line to the counties that don’t open these boxes or your arrested,” Pfeiffer said.Siegelman conceded to Riley on Nov. 18; officials with his 2002 campaign have said that the former governor did not want to get entangled in a legal skirmish over the election, creating a long-drawn out court battle similar to Al Gore’s situation against George W. Bush in Florida.They felt he could win again in 2006.Riley’s tally remained at 31,052 as it would on the secretary of state’s official election books; he would go on to win by a hair's breadth, by a margin of 3,120 votes, a two-tenths of a percent victory: 672,225 to Siegelman’s 669,105.June 20, 2003, as Alabama’s 52nd governor, Riley signed legislation that called for an automatic recount of votes in a general election if the candidate was defeated by less than one-half of a percent.The Baldwin ballots remained sealed.
Copyright © 2007 BaldwinCountyNOW.com
http://baldwincountynow.com/articles/2007/07/19/local_news/doc469fbb5bd2a7f444039407.txt

I Accuse…

BY Scott Horton, Harpers Magazine
PUBLISHED July 16, 2007

Today forty-four attorneys general from forty of the fifty states of the Union petition the United States Congress demanding a formal inquiry into the prosecution of Don Siegelman, the former Governor of Alabama, who was falsely charged, tried and convicted in federal court proceedings in Alabama. These proceedings constitute an indelible stain on the reputation of our nation for justice, which cannot be purged until they are set aside and those who committed these crimes mockingly in the name of justice are held to account for their misconduct.

The Bush Administration’s Department of Justice, with corrupt and malicious motive and intent, and in unseemly connivance with the Administration’s political retainers in Alabama, conceived and pursued a prosecution against Don Siegelman, through a grotesque and partisan perversion of justice, secured his conviction. This was done for a criminally corrupt purpose—in order to eliminate a popular elected official of an opposing party and to cement the Republican Party’s control over all attributes of state and federal power in Alabama, and to help bolster the fundraising advantages of the Alabama Republican Party by making those who donate to its opponents fear prosecution.

Dare to tell the truth, as we pledge to tell it, in full, since the normal channels of justice have failed to do so. Our duty is to speak out; we do not wish to be an accomplice in this travesty.

The truth, first of all, about Siegelman’s trial and conviction: At the root of it all is a group of evil men whose motivations are, and have from the beginning been, the basest political manipulations. The trial was a mockery and a farce which shamed and disgraced our courts, pursued by prosecutors who scorn justice and presided over by a judge who showed it only contempt.

Throughout they acted with the concerted aim of manipulating popular opinion for partisan political purposes. The public was astounded; rumors flew of the most horrible acts, the most monstrous deceptions, lies that were an affront to our history. The public, naturally, was taken in. No punishment could be too harsh. The people clamored for the humiliation of the defendant.

How flimsy it is! The fact that someone could have been convicted on this charge is the ultimate iniquity. I defy decent men to read it without a stir of indignation in their hearts and a cry of revulsion, at the thought of the undeserved punishment being meted out. And how childish and irrational the charges are, how groundless the accusations! How the majesty of the nation’s name and its prosecutorial authority was degraded by this spite and malice. It is said that within the deliberation room, the jurors were naturally leaning toward acquittal. Then machinations began to pressure the jurors improperly. Evidence of this was produced, and swept aside by the judge, who refused to make serious inquiry. This judge was not impartial, but bent on an injustice. I know of no greater crime against the state than the one committed here.

And now the prosecutors and the judge who committed this travesty will attempt to conceal their wrongdoing with claims of secrecy. Enough! Let truth be on the march. Let their misdeeds in the name of justice be fully exposed to the light of day, and let them be punished.

An iniquitous verdict has been rendered that will forever weigh upon our courts and will henceforth cast a shadow of suspicion on all their judgments. The conduct of this court is inescapably criminal. We are told of the honor of the courts; we are supposed to love and respect them. But this is not about those courts, whose dignity we are seeking, in our cry for justice.

Ah, what a cesspool of folly and foolishness, what preposterous fantasies, what corrupt police tactics, what inquisitorial, tyrannical practices! What petty whims of a few higher-ups trampling the nation under their boots, ramming back down their throats the people’s cries for truth and justice, with the travesty of partisan politics as a pretext.

It is a crime to lie to the public, to twist public opinion to insane lengths in the service of the vilest death-dealing machinations. It is a crime to poison the minds of the meek and the humble, to stoke the passions of with false charges.

Truth and justice, so ardently longed for! How terrible it is to see them trampled, unrecognized and ignored!

Truth is on the march, and nothing will stop it. This court and these prosecutors have, decidedly, a most singular and perverse idea of justice.

This is the plain truth and it is terrifying. I repeat with the most vehement conviction: truth is on the march, and nothing will stop it. Today is only the beginning, for it is only today that the positions have become clear: on one side, those who are guilty, who do not want the light to shine forth, on the other, those who seek justice and who will give their lives to attain it. I said it before and I repeat it now: when truth is buried underground, it grows and it builds up so much force that the day it explodes it blasts everything with it. We shall see whether we have been setting ourselves up for the most resounding of disasters, yet to come.

I accuse the court of allowing farcical charges to proceed before it, of doing manifest injustice and colluding in the conviction of an innocent man. The pursuit of justice must now be unrelenting. Without it we surrender to the forces of tyranny which are now descending upon our country.
www.harpers.org

The next move: Congress should get involved
In our opinion
The Anniston Star
07-16-2007
The state Republicans interested in moving past Don Siegelman and his conviction have shown their strategy. It appears they wish to distract us with word games.
The best hint may have come in the July 8 edition of The Birmingham News. In a front-page article, the paper quotes sources that seek to minimize an allegation that Karl Rove may have been involved in the prosecution of the former Democratic governor.
According to The News, an affidavit that raised this topic “doesn’t actually say Rove was behind the investigation, the lawyer who wrote it said. But that hasn’t stopped others from using the affidavit to demand a congressional hearing.”
And what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with “others” seeking answers? What other method might be used to get to the bottom of this explosive allegation?
It looks like after an initial round of the key players issuing denials, another tactic is in play. The new one glosses over whether or not Rove’s was mentioned. Instead, we get a sidestep: The affidavit merely says Rove’s name was dropped, it doesn’t establish Rove’s involvement. Call it a case of guilt by name-dropping.
A little history comes in handy.
The past eight months have been filled with stories of how U.S. attorneys’ first loyalties were to be with the Bush administration — “loyal Bushies,” as one administration memo put it. Going off the track resulted in a pink slip, as fired prosecutors David Iglesias and Carol Lam discovered.
If many of the players named in the affidavit were amateurs, rank-and-file partisans or those without a track record of nasty politics stretching back decades, then hearings would be a waste of time.
But this isn’t the case.
Rove’s introduction into Alabama politics came in the 1990s. He had been exiled out of the George H.W. Bush campaign for — gasp! — playing dirty. The Business Council of Alabama hired Rove to turn over a state Supreme Court made up of Democrats it believed to be hostile to business. Rove succeeded, as he did in Texas at about the same time. Republicans gained control of both state supreme courts.
With Rove’s help, a new brand of campaigning for judicial races came to Alabama. As Joshua Green presents in a 2004 Atlantic Monthly article (“Karl Rove in a Corner,”), whisper campaigns were launched that pushed Rove’s favorite electoral hot-buttons, including homophobia.
Long after Rove reached higher levels of fame, Alabamians are left with the affects of judicial campaigns less about justice and more about partisan rabble-rousing.
Rove’s career is weighed down with this sort of legacy. He’s a campaign operative willing to do what it takes to get his candidate in office. He was involved in the leaking of a CIA agent whose status was covert, a criminal act in some cases. The reason for naming the agent? She was married to a Bush administration critic. How he keeps his security clearance is a mystery.
Also, Rove keeps popping up in investigations of the partisan firings of U.S. prosecutors.
So now we come to Jill Simpson’s story. In it, she alleges Bill Canary, a friend of Rove, mentioned “Karl” was going persuade the Justice Department to take down Siegelman.
We must remember that this is merely an allegation. It is yet to be proven. Several possibilities present themselves.
Simpson might not be telling the truth, though she’s risking quite a bit, both professionally and personally, if it’s merely a ruse.
Simpson could be accurate that Canary alluded to Rove during the conference call. Though, it’s possible that Canary might have mentioned Rove even though they’d never broached the subject of prosecuting Siegelman.
It is possible that those connecting the dots are correct. Rove was interested in taking down a Democrat who had shown he knew how to win statewide elections in Alabama.
Rove’s only comment on the matter was to a reporter from the Huntsville Times. When asked about the allegation, Rove said, “I know nothing about any phone call.” That is a wholly irrelevant comment. No one has alleged he was involved in the conference call. It’s known as a non-denial denial, and it’s not helpful.
What would be helpful is for Congress to look into the matter and have Rove, Canary and the others tell their side of the story under oath and before a congressional committee.
Please help in contacting the entire US House & Senate in calling for/demanding an investigation into Governor Don Siegelman’s case and the connection with Karl Rove/Bill Canary/Bob Riley and the Department of Justice/US Attorney scandal. http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/olmbr.html http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm Toll free numbers to Congress 1-800-828-0498 or 800-614-2803. Free Don Siegelman!!!

From: Joseph Patton
I do a weekly segment of political satire for WAUD 1230 in Auburn. I've included a section on Siegelman for this week's segment. The following is the full script. Enjoy!
--
Just when you thought the temperature couldn’t get any worse, I’m bringing a little hot air to the airwaves.
That’s right, folks, it’s time again for "Goat Hill Gossip." This is Joseph Patton from the Capital City Free Press, Alabama’s premier online magazine at Capcityfreepress.com. That’s Capcityfreepress.com.
In response to Judge Mark Fuller’s sentence of multiple lifetimes in prison and daily Chinese water torture for former Governor Don Siegelman who was convicted of multiple felony counts of being a Democrat in the state of Alabama, the Alabama Democratic Party is turning the tables on the sitting governor, Republican Bob Riley.
In an op-ed piece written for the Press-Register of Mobile, state party chairman Joe Turnham argues that Siegelman’s wrongdoing is no different than Riley’s campaign receiving funds from convicted lobbyist and former Riley aide Michael Scanlon. Scanlon has pled guilty to conspiring to bribe a member of Congress and other public officials. Turnham says the money was funneled from casino interest through the state Republican Party to the 2002 Riley campaign. And… how does Governor Riley feel about PAC-to-PAC transfers again?
Turnham also notes the $300,000 PAC gift to the ‘06 Riley campaign from investors of the newly formed Hudson Alpha Institute, which, you guessed it, received millions of dollars from the State of Alabama for a biotech operation in Hunstsville.
Despite all the facts and figures Turnham is tossing around, he should be reminded that any politician who can first win election by making votes magically appear in Mobile County on the THIRD tally, then four years later gives his opponent a stroke, will remain governor as long as he darn well feels like it.
And in related Siegelman witch trial news, Fuller ruled yesterday that Siegelman does not have to pay
$181,325 in restitution he had just ordered a week prior. Fuller explained that the amount was based on a charge Siegelman had already been acquitted of.
I suppose the best way to describe the gratuitous error would be your credit card statement revealing that you were charged 10 grand for that pizza you ordered during the last ball game. Did you think people wouldn’t notice, Slick? Even George W. Bush’s math isn’t THAT bad.
And speaking of big bucks, the state of Alabama has yet again landed itself as the 50th state in terms of the amount of sales and local taxes collected per person. The latest report shows that Alabama collected
$2,569 from state, county and local taxes in fiscal year 2005. The national median for ‘05 was $3,387.
Though some may scoff at our low tax receipts, I say we should stand proudly--peering out over our schools with crumbling walls, streets riddled with potholes and police officers chasing criminals with go-karts--and take pride in our low, low taxes.

And of course what few dollars we do forfeit to our various levels of government are now being diverted to pay Nick Sabin’s salary anyway.
And in news which certainly qualifies as bizarre, a Kansas City golf course is missing almost 5,000 golf balls. The balls are fluorescent yellow and were all swiped some time Sunday night from the range. Though local police have made no arrests and don’t even have any leads in the case, our investigator reporter from the Capital City Free Press is on top of the mysterious theft. Her current theory concerning the culprit even has a political twist. She believes the perpetrators can be found at the highest level of government no less--Congress in fact--since the Democrats have clearly been missing their balls since taking power last year.
Also in in our nation’s capitol, President Bush has directed former White House aides to defy congressional subpoenas, citing presidential privilege. The orders were issued as part of an investigation into the administration’s domestic spying program. The defiant act is leading some in Congress to consider issuing contempt citations, an action not taken since Ronald Reagan was president.
When asked for comment, Bush angrily pounded the podium in the White House briefing room, exclaiming:
"But… but… Dick Cheney told me I could use my super-duper presidentiacal powers, gosh darnnit!"
Cheney of course could not be reached for comment as he is again hunkered down in an undisclosed location where he runs his new mysterious fourth branch of government and is completing work on the Death Star.
And in less serious news, the much-lauded Redneck Games just held its 12th annual gathering this weekend. In East Dublin, Georgia, crowds came from far, wide and trailer parks in general to participate in events such as the Mud Pit Belly Flop, Redneck Horseshoes in which the participants toss toilet seats, Watermelon Seed Spitting and Bobbin’ for Pig’s Feet.
An Associated Press reporter interviewed one August, Georgia man who attends very year. Tom Curry said, "Coming here is our roots. And it’s the best day of the summer. Everybody’s friendly and everybody’s family." Well yeah, Tom, when inbreeding is involved, everyone IS in fact family.
And before they try and burn my office down again, I’m tuning out. Be sure and direct your internet browser to Capcityfreepress.com. That’s Capcityfreepress.com for a scathing looking at the search for Osama bin Laden by Managing Editor Josh Carples and my open letter to Ann Coulter
This is Joseph Patton from the Capital City Free Press signing off. Talk to you to next week!

U.S. Representative Artur Davis submitted this letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers formally requesting the inclusion of the case against former governor Don Siegelman in the committee’s investigations of the selective political prosecutions by the Department of Justice.


ARTUR DAVIS
7th District, Alabama
United States House of Representatives
208 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-2665 phone (202) 226-9567 fax
www.House.gov/ArturDavis

July 6, 2007

Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
U. S. House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6216

Dear Chairman Conyers:

It is my understanding that the Judiciary Committee plans to conduct a hearing regarding allegations of selective prosecution by the Department of Justice. I appreciate your willingness to engage this issue, and I am writing to encourage you to include within the inquiry the recent prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Siegelman was the target of a four year federal probe into influence-peddling by his administration and its allies. In 2004, after narrowly losing reelection, Siegelman was indicted in the Northern District of Alabama on charges related to the delivery of a state Medicaid contract. The charges were weak enough that they were dismissed at the start of trial.

In 2005, Siegelman was indicted again, this time in the Middle District of Alabama, on a broad array of corruption charges. In June, 2006, the jury returned a mixed verdict, finding him not guilty of 25 of the 32 counts against him. The remaining counts focused largely on one event: in 1999, an Alabama health care executive, Richard Scrushy, made a sizable contribution to a lottery referendum initiative backed by Siegelman. After making the contribution, Scrushy was appointed to a position on the state board awarding certificates of need to hospitals.

A variety of claims have arisen regarding the Siegelman case. It has been suggested that the case against Siegelman was unusually weak and uncorroborated. Only one witness testified that there was any linkage between the appointment of Scrushy and his contribution to the lottery initiative, and that individual professed to have no first hand knowledge. Despite the lengthy indictment, no government witnesses claimed to have direct knowledge that Siegelman had solicited or obtained favors or contributions in exchange for official actions: virtually all of the evidence of “cash for contracts” involved Siegelman staffers, and not the governor himself. (notably, all of the counts involving these claims were rejected by the jury).

Most explosively, an attorney who worked in the 2002 campaign against Siegelman has sworn an affidavit claiming that she participated in a November 2002 conference call in which an influential Republican claimed that Karl Rove had given assurances that Siegelman would be indicted. Prior to his service in the White House, Rove had an extensive history of involvement in Alabama elections, and maintains contact with a number of Republican contributors and operatives in my state.
Our committee has heard testimony that one former U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias, was pressured by a United States Senator to bring indictments against Democratic officials prior to the November 2006 elections. Another former U.S. Attorney, Jack McKay, testified that he was pushed by Republican officials to indict Democrats engaged in voter
registration efforts during a governor’s race in Washington. At least one U.S. Attorney, Steven M. Biskupic, was removed from a list of prosecutors to be terminated only after he indicted a Democratic appointee in the midst of a closely contested governor’s race in Wisconsin. Finally, another chief prosecutor, Todd Graves, has testified to the Senate that he believes his termination was linked to a refusal to bring charges against local voting rights activists.

A claim of selective prosecution is not implausible in this Justice Department. In addition to evidence that prosecutors were fired for failing to bring cases that would bolster the Republican cause, the press has reported on several cases where the
government’s cases against Democratic officeholders were strained at best. I have referenced the Wisconsin prosecution of Georgia Thompson, where the Seventh Circuit summarily reversed a corruption conviction and denounced the prosecution case as “beyond thin”, and I note the prosecution of a Democratic District Attorney in Michigan on charges related to a campaign contribution from a relative of a defendant for whom the DA sought a new trial. The case, which resulted in a swift acquittal, was marred by the complete absence of any proof connecting the contribution to the DA’s actions.

The trading of favors for official acts is reprehensible, and stains the reputation of the political process. But it would shatter the system if a Justice Department built a culture in which prosecutors’ career advancement depends on their willingness to press exotic legal theories that might advance the electoral interests of the Republican Party.

I am sensitive to the fact that the Siegelman case is on appeal. But an appellate court is not susceptible to being influenced by publicity in the way that a jury might be. I agree with the New York Times editorial of June 30, 2007 that the facts are suggestive enough that United States v. Donald Siegelman merits inclusion in the committee’s inquiry.

Sincerely,

Artur Davis

Member of Congress

Note: A few weeks ago, this paper tried to discredit the affidavit by misidentifying Simpson as a “Siegelman advocate” resulting in a printed retraction. This same paper ran an article attacking the affidavit based on allegations from a former Bob Riley staffer – failing to mention that the individual disparaging the affidavit had close ties to Karl Rove. For nearly six years, the Birmingham News never scrutinized the prosecutions charges, methods, or conflicts. Had they done so – and thus removed the state’s media security blanket swaddling the US Attorney - there is a real possibility that the Siegelman indictment never would have become a reality. The bias of the Birmingham News and the Mobile Press Register is glaring and quickly becoming part of the story of the Siegelman case.

Affidavit about Siegelman case open to debate
Sunday, July 08, 2007
BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE
Birmingham News staff writer
An affidavit cited as proof that White House strategist Karl Rove helped arrange the Justice Department prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman doesn't actually say Rove was behind the investigation, the lawyer who wrote it said. But that hasn't stopped others from using the affidavit to demand a congressional hearing.
Jill Simpson, the Republican Rainsville lawyer who wrote the affidavit, said in an interview that she is not responsible for how others interpret her sworn statement. She said she tried to accurately represent a conference call she heard in which Rove's name came up, and she said no one definitively said in that call that Rove arranged for Siegelman's investigation.
It's not clear if Rove was being identified in the call as the person behind the investigation or as someone who heard Siegelman already was under investigation, Simpson said.
"You can read it both ways," Simpson said in the interview Friday. "I did it as best I could to factually write it down as exactly as to what was said. And there's two interpretations to it, there's no doubt about that."
The fact that Simpson's affidavit is unclear about Rove's role is significant because her statement has been reported nationally as the first clear link between Rove and the Siegelman case. Democrats and Siegelman supporters have cited Simpson's affidavit as proof that the case was politically motivated, with U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, becoming the latest to argue that Siegelman's case should be included with others under congressional review for possible selective prosecution.
And that's fine with Siegelman's lawyers, who say Simpson's claims are not relevant to the appeal of his conviction. A congressional review, however, could help him win a new trial.
"I don't know whether what she says is true or not. And it doesn't really matter as to where I am or what my job is right now," Siegelman lawyer Vince Kilborn said. "But if there are documents produced, let's say, in the congressional investigation, and they're exculpatory and they have not been produced to the defense, that's a new trial, in my opinion."
Siegelman and HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy remain in an Atlanta federal prison following their sentencing on corruption convictions last month.
Close election:
The national buzz over possible White House influence in the Siegelman investigation began several weeks ago, after Simpson's affidavit was distributed to several national publications. Simpson said Scrushy lawyer Art Leach asked her earlier this year to write the affidavit.
In her affidavit, written in May, Simpson said fellow Republicans during a conference call on Nov. 18, 2002, discussed concerns that Siegelman would continue to be a political problem in the future. That was days after the general election, and Siegelman and Bob Riley, who would go on to win the governor's race, were involved in a heated recount battle because of the election's razor-thin margin.
Simpson's affidavit said Bill Canary, a Riley adviser, told Riley's son on the call that Siegelman wasn't likely to be an issue. Canary is the husband of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary of Montgomery, whose staff handled the Siegelman investigation.
"William `Bill' Canary told him not to worry, 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," Simpson said in the affidavit.
The federal investigation of Siegelman was well publicized before the November 2002 conference call Simpson describes in her affidavit. Nearly 10 months earlier, The Birmingham News reported the federal investigation of Siegelman.
The case received extensive media coverage throughout that year, including articles about Leura Canary stepping aside from the investigation, and arguments by Siegelman and his lawyers that politics prompted the investigation.
Media inferences:
While Simpson does not say it explicitly in her carefully worded affidavit, her statement about Rove has led several national media outlets and Siegelman supporters to infer that she heard Canary say Rove arranged for the Justice Department investigation of Siegelman. The result has been a number of articles characterizing Rove's role in different ways, even using partial quotes from Simpson's affidavit at times to more clearly link Rove to the case.
Time magazine: "A longtime Republican lawyer in Alabama swears she heard a top GOP operative in the state say that Rove `had spoken with the Department of Justice' about `pursuing' Siegelman."
Los Angeles Times: "Just this month, a Republican lawyer signed a sworn statement that she had heard five years ago that Rove was preparing to politically neutralize the popular Siegelman." The Times in the same article states that Simpson's affidavit said Rove and others "would make sure the Justice Department pursued the Democrat so he was not a political threat in the future."
The New York Times editorial: "The most arresting evidence that Mr. Siegelman may have been railroaded is a sworn statement by a Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson. Ms. Simpson said she was on a conference call in which Bill Canary, the husband of the United States attorney whose office handled the case, insisted that `his girls' would `take care of' Mr. Siegelman. According to Ms. Simpson, he identified his `girls' as his wife, Leura Canary, and another top Alabama prosecutor. Mr. Canary, who has longstanding ties to Karl Rove, also said, according to Ms. Simpson, that he had worked it out with `Karl.'"
Hearing requested:
Davis, in a letter requesting a congressional hearing, also went further in linking Rove to the Siegelman case than Simpson did in her affidavit. He cited The New York Times editorial in his request to House leaders Friday that Siegelman's case be included in a broader congressional investigation of selective political prosecutions.
"Most explosively, an attorney who worked in the 2002 campaign against Siegelman has sworn an affidavit claiming that she participated in a November 2002 conference call in which an influential Republican claimed that Karl Rove had given assurances that Siegelman would be indicted."
Simpson said in her interview Friday that she is not responsible for how Davis and the media characterize her affidavit.
Davis held a different view of Simpson's affidavit in an interview last month, noting that her statement did not prove Siegelman's case was politically motivated. "All Jill Simpson can testify to is what she says a bunch of people said during a phone conversation. Rove never came on the line," Davis said last month. "That's why the affidavit doesn't tell you that much."
Davis on Friday said he has not changed his position, and he once again downplayed Simpson's affidavit.
"I don't put much stock in the affidavit as critical proof," he said. "The affidavit is one piece of proof ... but I don't think it is the most important piece of proof in this matter. It doesn't speak to Karl Rove. The question is whether Karl Rove ever did or said anything to instigate this investigation."
A bid for accuracy:
Simpson said that while she personally believes Rove had a role in the federal investigation of Siegelman, she was careful in her affidavit not to overstate what was said in the conference call, despite complaints from some who wanted her to more clearly link Rove to the case. Instead, Simpson said, she tried to factually recount the call, and in doing so allowed for the possibility that Canary was saying Rove heard about the investigation or Rove arranged for it.
"It can be either of the two," Simpson said. "And mind you, the fact of the matter is, I've heard from half a dozen people, `Well, why can't you have said, blah blah blah blah blah?' And I'm like, `I was trying to be factual.'"
Simpson said she's also troubled by the fact that the purpose of her affidavit is being ignored by some who have portrayed it as focusing on Rove's role in the Siegelman case. Rove is mentioned in only one of the 22 paragraphs, she said, in an affidavit that was written to disclose what she believes is another lawyer's conflict of interest.
Simpson claims Terry Butts, one of Scrushy's lawyers, had a conflict of interest in the corruption case because he earlier had worked for Riley and against Siegelman.
"To be honest with you, I wrote it about Terry Butts. I ended up writing an affidavit about it eventually. And I stand on it," she said in the interview.
In her affidavit, Simpson states that Butts was involved in the conference call and said he would persuade Siegelman to drop his challenge of Riley's 2002 victory. Butts and Canary have said the phone call Simpson refers to in the affidavit never happened.
"I can't have a conflict if the conversation didn't happen," Butts said Saturday.
Washington correspondent Mary Orndorff contributed to this report. bblackledge@bhamnews.com
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/118388255328230.xml&coll=2
© 2007 The Birmingham News


Siegelman/story clarification
Quote from the Simpson Affidavit:
(Canary said) not to worry 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," the affidavit said.
Point being that according to today’s Birmingham News Story, the US Attorney’s husband (Bill Canary) and the son of Governor Bob Riley (Rob Riley) have given up their denials that Canary had a conversation with Rove. They are only arguing what Canary’s conversation with Rove meant. There is no denial in the story that Rove had a conversation with Justice regarding an ongoing investigation of a sitting Democratic Governor.
The real question is whether Rove’s – now undisputed – conversation with Justice about Siegelman occurred before or after November 6, 2002 – Election Day.

Please forward & blog, everybody, everywhere; write, fax & call Congress. Demand JUSTICE for our Great Governor Don Siegelman!!!
Thank you,
Pam Miles 256-679-4997

www.donsiegelman.org

www.thatspolitics.com

FREE DON SIEGELMAN!!!

Welcome Siegelmanites...