Even Libby paid his $250,400 fine!

Someone's looking for more information on the Republican lawyer's affidavit! The Watergate plumbers strike again!!

Siegelman and Scrushy are guilty and should go to prison. Scrushy's son has been arrested. Let them all go to prison and serve their debt.

A tiny legal point here, Kilborn. To be crimally convicted, the jury has to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Siegelman did the crime. It is quite possible that a specific piece of evidence may be 100% true, but the whole of the evidence is not enough to reach the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. That evidence doesn't become untrue or necessarily irrelevant just because the guy was found not guilty. If the evidence is true and relevant, it should be allowed in sentencing despite it's origin. All kinds of stuff, like victim impact statements, prior bad acts, etc., are allowed at sentencing that aren't allowed in the other phases.
Stop crying and take your medicine.

Belle,

From what I know about sentencing (which mostly has to do with domestic violence and rape cases as I've worked as a children's and women's advocate for several years), if a person is aquitted of the crime, by definition there is no victim for that particular crime. I think the judge's lousy judgement (sorry for the bad pun) has just bought Seigelman a successful appeal. To my knowledge, you cannot sentence someone for a crime that a jury has found reason to aquit for.

Whatever else may have happened in this case (Seigelman may well be dirty, unfortunately, Republicans aren't the only ones who commit crimes), the judge has pushed way past what he is allowed to do. Recent cases have made it VERY clear that a judge cannot overrule the jury's verdict, e.g. pass a sentence/fine for a crime for which a defendent was aquitted.

Jake, Mark, and Belle,

I've been following this case pretty closely, and it has stunk from the beginning. It was filed shortly before the 2002 election by a US Attorney who had an undeniable conflict of interest, which she then tried to cover up by recusing herself but promulgating the claim that it was another US Attorney who had filed it.

Have you read Dana Jill Simpson's affidavit regarding the conference call in which US Attorney Leura Canary's husband, Bill, said that "Karl Rove had promised to get the Justice Department on Siegelman. Canary also allegedly said he'd get his "girls" on Siegelman, referring to two of the US attorneys in the state"[TPMMuckraker 6/27/07]?

Did you know that Simpson is a Republican attorney who came forward with this information?

Did you know that Bill Canary is a GOP operative in Alabama and friend of Karl Rove who in this "conference call amongst several top strategists on the Bob Riley (R) gubernatorial campaign in 2002 ... discussed possible ways to force Riley's opponent, Siegelman, to concede the hotly contested election" [TPMmuckraker 6/22/07]? Canary was assured that the DoJ was ready to move forward with the prosecution.

Were you aware that, when asked by a reporter about the allegations made in Simpson's affidavit,
"Rove's response (with a smile) to such an explosive accusation:
"'I know nothing about any phone call,' Rove said.
"Then a White House press aide stepped up and said, 'What he meant to say was that he has no comment'" [TPMmuckraker 6/25/07]?
No one said that he did.

How about that when the prosecution was pushing for a 30-year sentence, Siegelman cited the last prosecution of a governor for political corruption, against Guy Hunt in 1993, noting "'The government doesn't contend I ever put a penny in my pocket, and they're asking for a life sentence. ... For the Republican governor who actually stole $200,000, [key prosecutor on that case] Mr. [Steve] Feaga did not ask for a day in prison, not a day'" [TPMmuckraker 6/26/07]? It's just another case of unequal sentencing for similar offenses--the real difference being the political parties of each.

As I said, this whole thing stinks. Add to this that the judge has allowed even a mention of charges of which Siegelman is acquitted let alone a request for the fine associated with one smacks of severe misconduct.

Please, this is partisan, and there's no avoiding it. Even if some of the charges against Siegelman are true, this was a calculated effort to get him out and a Republican governor in.

There's no way that this isn't ugly, and it's just one more thing for the Congress to investigate.

Maybe Dana Jill Simpson has opened the door for other Republicans to come clean about these nasty doings. Congress is ready to listen, folks.

code: cloth, like the whole cloth the case is made from

FWIW, I've followed the case--through the AL papers, mostly--for years. And, based on what I read in the AL papers, I assumed that Siegelman and Scrushy were guilty, even though it looked like the "justice" used to get them was suspicious at best and most likely corrupt. However, now that I've dug through the court paperwork and taken another look at all those AL--we're talking the AL Newhouse papers, mostly the Birmingham News and the Mobile Register--articles, I think it's quite likely that Siegelman and Scrushy are innocent and they got shafted. The stuff written about the case in the AL papers while the investigation(s) and the trial(s) were going on just doesn't hold up to close examination and it's not in synch with the court records. I think it's no mistake that the court records that used to be posted on the Mobile Register website were removed when the Siegelman conviction started getting a lot of attention. It wasn't just the DoJ that took Siegelman down, a lot of the work was done by Republican operatives working at the Newhouse papers in the state. You can dig up most of the court records and articles though archive.org. See for yourself. The articles in the papers are all told from the perspective of the prosecutor and make a strong case for guilt until you take a look at the actual evidence and law involved. Yes, a jury found them guilty so, yes, they are guilty but the process that sent them to jail was wildly corrupt and it looks like the prosecutors and the judges involved were a significant part of the corruption. I know, I know, AL is full of corrupt politicians. And, yeah, the Guy Hunt conviction was almost as bad as the Siegelman mess but, in the end, I don't think Siegelman or Scrushy deserve jail time or even a guilty verdict.

HE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SERVE A SINGLE-DAY IN PRISON, JUST LIKE LIBBY! MR. BUSH? AHEM???

AND HE SHOULD SUE: 1)GONZALES, AND 2)BUSH'S JUSTICE DEPT, [& 3)KARL ROVE] FOR:

ABUSE - OF - PROCESS...

&

MALICIOUS - PROSECUTION...

FOR PROSECUTING HIM FOR POLITICAL-CRIMES. AND WASTING THE JUDGES'/COURTS'/AND JURORS' TIME & RESOURCES. OY, HERB.

...Maybe Dana Jill Simpson has opened the door...

Maybe. But I refuse to be surprised when Ms. Simpson changes her mind about the affidavit and says she was confusing this phone call with a another phone call about a Republican politician and it's all okay now. No, I suspect the phone called happened and that Siegelman is innocent and Rove and Co guilty but I also think it's possible that they knew the Siegelman sentencing was going to generate some heat and the Simpson affidavit is meant to poison the well. Paranoid, sure. But they've had years to cover their tracks and set up some escape routes and/or gum up the works for years. What makes me think Simpson might be playing games is that her account is too sketchy and out of context to nail anyone. Why would she bother? Why not just write a few letters to the editor and/or speak out in support of Siegelman. If she's really worried about Siegelman has she talked to his lawyer? She's had weeks to flesh out her story but hasn't, it's just dangling there like bait. Even assuming she's honest but naive, there's no there there without one of the other callers speaking up and/or a tape of the call.

Belle -

The prosecutors are adding in punishment using sentencing guidelines for all the crimes Siegelman was accused of committing. They're not saying that he should receive the maximum sentence for his convictions because of other information. I think that's how you're interpreting the prosecution's recommendations, and that would be appropriate. As you pointed out, all kinds of information can be used in sentencing.

If I understand correctly, they're saying he should be punished equally for convicted and acquitted offenses. That's just idiotic.

What did Siegelman do?

Somebody who donated to an lottery education campaign( which is a govt campaign and not a personal candidate campaign) was given a politcal appointment -- does not sound like bribery to me.