« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
"Obvious" Obstruction Of Justice Accusation Unclear
Yesterday we promised to check out the obstruction of justice accusation a prosecutor launched at jailed former Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL).
It's a puzzling accusation, as the AP's report made clear. Was assistant US attorney Steve Feaga pointing to Siegelman's media campaign of claiming his case was politically motivated? Feaga said Siegelman and his co-defendant (who have both been convicted of corruption charges) are "reaching out from their jail cells" trying to sway events. When asked for specifics, Feaga said "it should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention."
Randall Eliason, a former prosecutor for the US Attorney's office in Washington, DC, told me the obstruction of justice charge is probably not related to Siegelman's PR campaign. Eliason said a prosecutor must show there is a pending proceeding in order to establish obstruction.
"It's pretty unlikely that the allegation would be that they are obstructing their own case by talking to the media," Eliason told me. Siegelman is waiting on an appeal, but Eliason said the appeal proceedings will be based on the trial record, not subsequent media coverage.
Another possible theory is that Siegelman is intimidating witnesses, lying to investigators or engaging in any other qualifying act to obstruct another investigation. The AP story hints at this possibility:
During the hearing, Feaga also said prosecutors had "reached out" to Siegelman within the last six weeks seeking information that could lead to charges or convictions against other people in other cases. Siegelman refused to cooperate, he said.
Of course, refusing to cooperate isn't the same as obstruction of justice (see the Fifth Amendment). So what's going on? For now, we're stumped. Faega said this will all become even "more obvious" in the coming months.
Josh
Zachary
"For now, we're stumped. Faega said this will all become even "more obvious" in the coming months"
Translation--"Once we get within months of the election, we plan to unleash a whole slew of petty accusations and lies intended solely to show how corrupt the Democrat party is."
August 31, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Laura, Please take a look at Amy Goodman's broadcast on Democracy Now on August 24. She interviewed Scott Horton, Columbia Law Professor about the Siegelman case.
Horton made some very interesting comments about Karl Rove's involvement in this case from the beginning. It is worth watching, and it would be worthwhile for TPM to interview him themselves.
The show is podcast and can be downloaded from the Democracy Now websitel
August 31, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me, Siegelman's case is the torpedo bringing Bush's Lusitania down. No wonder the crew panics and tosses ballast, Rove and Gonzales specifically, overboard.
August 31, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems patently "obvious" from the context of the remarks that Feaga is referring to this:
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 -- Witness Tampering
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading
conduct toward another person, with intent to--
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to--
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use
in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Its one thing for Seliegman to not want to cooperate himself with any continuing probe, but its something completely different is Seliegman is urging others to not cooperate.
Why would he do this and at the same time mount an aggressive PR campaign? Maybe he's banking on a pardon if a Dem is elected President, and he doesn't want his chances to be diminished by additional evidence of criminal activity on his part.
August 31, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually it is not "obvious" at all, since there is no public record evidence of anything of the sort.
August 31, 2007 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
shipwreckedcrew - the Witness Tampering Code you cite describes exactly what your Bush Administration has done with every one of the Congressional requests for testimony and documents: Gonzo, Goodling, Sampson, Rove, Rice, Schloz, von Spakovsky, Rummy, Meirs, et freaking al.
"Influence, delay, or prevent (the) testimony.." - this is Bush/Cheney standard operation procedure.
And shouldn't you be in an airport bathroom somewhere, tapping your toes and picking up stray pieces of toilet paper?
August 31, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
two beers?? Sounds like a lot more.
Actually, the assertion of a legal privilege does not fit the definition of "corruptly" as used in the statute.
If Congress thinks its entitled to those documents/testimony notwithstanding the assertion of the privilege, it can pursue its available avenues of recourse.
It hasn't done so.
Which simply means that Congress is more interested in the spectacle and the newscycle than it is in the documents or the testimony.
August 31, 2007 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
shipwreckedcrew: Were you on ther Bushitania when it was sinking and the rats were jumping ship?
Go back to Powerline where this crap sticks, instead of here where people have brains and know crap when they see it!!
August 31, 2007 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
dhs,
Thanks for the referral to the interview with Scott Horton. Very valuable.
I have had the feeling from the moment Dana Jill Simpson released her affidavit that this was the linchpin in toppling the Rove machine.
Even though he's spending quality time with his family, he is not exempt from prosecution, is he? If the statute of limitations on filing a case is based on the discovery of the crime, which is what I understand to be true, then it would be best to wait until January 22, 2009.
September 1, 2007 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shipwrecked: Since when is revealing improper motivations for prosecution a crime? Persuading people to stop doing something wrong is different than "corruptly persuading" possible witnesses not to cooperate.
What actions do you maintain fall under the statute you quoted?
September 1, 2007 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
shipwreckedcrew ,
Aern't you afraid that the next Democratic President will have all the expanded unitary powers that Bush now asserts- are you really okay with President Hillary Clinton having all the power that Yoo & Addington currently claim for President Bush ?
I personally want to preserve vigorous oversight of the Execuetive - its called checks & balances.
September 2, 2007 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink