« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Denying Congress Siegelman Docs, DOJ Gets Rumsfeldian
The Justice Department is denying a subpoena from House Judiciary chair John Conyers for documents relating to the prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman.
Conyers is investigating whether the 2006 prosecution on corruption charges of Siegelman, a Democrat, was politically motivated.
In a letter sent Friday to Conyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Keith Nelson writes that DOJ won't produce the documents in question, consistent with a department policy of not providing internal prosecution materials to Congress. Nelson makes the contorted argument that even though such documents in fact have been given to Congress in the past, that would not affect the decision on the Siegelman documents, because of supposed uncertainty about the facts of the other cases:
We do not believe that a possible departure from those policies in any given matter, the details of which may not be known or knowable at this point, requires us to set them aside in any other matter.
In response, a Judiciary Committee aide told TPMmuckraker:
Not sure when DOJ starting getting Donald Rumsfeld to write their letters, but I don't think the Committee's subpoena can be put off by some Justice Department Uncertainty Principle that refuses to answer Congressional oversight based on the unknowable nature of facts. In the end, this wrangling over oversight precedent misses the important point here - the Department's reputation is at a low ebb, and they should be working to clear away the clouds over the Siegelman case, not hunkering down and hoping they'll blow over.
At a 2002 press conference, Rumseld famously told reporters, in regard to whether Saddam Hussein had tried to pass weapons of mass destruction to terrorists:
[A]s we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.
Last week, we reported on new documents that have surfaced in the Siegelman case, showing, among other things, that the U.S. Attorney on the case -- who had recused herself because her husband is a top GOP operative who had run the gubernatorial campaign of Siegelman's GOP opponent -- continued to advise prosecutors.
In an interview with TPMmuckraker, Siegelman lamented what he called "outrageous criminal conduct" on the part of the US Attorney's office and main DOJ.













Mukasey's DOJ is a piece of work.
November 17, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mukasey is Schumer's and Feinstein's boy.
November 17, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely correct, nellie. I hope they're proud of themselves.
November 17, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Mukasey is Schumer's and Feinstein's boy. But, and I can't believe I am saying this, we should not overlook the possibility that by blocking Mukasey Bush could have come up with someone far worse.
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
November 17, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush undoubtedly would have tried to find someone worse.
I doubt he would have succeeded. Bush owes Schumer big time for this one.
November 18, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Bush could have come up with someone far worse. If Congress stalled and didn't pass Mukasy, it could have been left to the deputy AG at the time who was an ARCH bush loyalist.
Look, Mukasy chose not to interfere with Ohio elections, which Bush was pushing the AG to do after SCOTUS stepped in and put an end to the Ohio GOP obstruction and voter disenfranchise tactics.
Yes, Obama would have won anyway, but I believe allowing Bruner to have a free hand set the tone of the hitch free presidential elections we just saw. It's a good thing there is no call of controversy of voter fraud enraged idiotic right wing sheeple.
Plus, is this information not going to be available when Obama takes office? The Siegelman stuff information should pass onto the new AG should it not?
November 18, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
arias:
Have you ever heard of a paper shredder?
November 18, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mukasey is Schumer's and Feinstein's boy.
For which no one should ever forgive either of them. Those two and Lieberman are like Bush, Cheney and Rove - pure evil incarnate. I hope all 6 wind up in jail under the most humiliating circumstances imaginable.
But getting back to the post. What will happen when the new AG comes in? Can Mukasey deep 6 this stuff for good or only until January 21?
November 18, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Siegelman's vindication and revalidation won't happen as long as Bush is in office. But when the 111th is seated, and Obama's finally at home in the White House, the Siegelman saga should be a top priority of the NEW DOJ, the one that respects the J in DOJ.
Bush's DOJ will go down in history as the Department of Junk.
Seriously, what Rove and his Alabama gang did to Siegelman won;t be forgotten. And to even suggest that going after Rove for organizing the project that illegally put Siegelman in prison is some sort of partisan vengeance move, well, those who call justice partisan revenge are usually on the wrong side of that justice.
November 17, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
uh, is anyone actually surprised by this... how many sternly worded conyers letters has the white house wiped its asses with now...
conyers should be embarrassed.
November 17, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless they are planning the shred the documents, what is the point in withholding them at this point? In 64 days, more or less, a new administration is coming in with new appointments to the DOJ who will presumably be more willing to cooperate with Congress.
November 17, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ding Ding Ding.
They might not even shred them, just accidentally lose them somewhere. Most of the good stuff is probably in computerized form. I think at this point all of these folks have also realized that until 1/21 they get to collect ten grand or more a month at taxpayer expense for sitting on their butts and writing snippy letters, so why not?
November 17, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gonzales is not very capable and acted primarily as a stooge for Bush. Mukasey is very capable and acts primarily as a stooge for Bush. I had a little sympathy for Gonzales as he took the fall for his boss and mentor. I hold Mukasey in utter contempt.
November 17, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the new info that came to light about the Prosector's continued contact with jury and well after she recused herself did come from a whistle blower who is now battling to save his/her job. Hopefully that whistler has all pertinent documents tucked away somewhere in a safe security deposit box.
November 18, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some say if Mukasey didn't pass, Bush may have appoined someone worse.
Well, can anyone mention what Mukasey has done so far the makes him better than "somebody worse"?
November 18, 2008 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Democrats had had the fortitude not to confirm Mukasey, surely they would have been able to resist confirming someone worse.
I think their feeling was that Mukasey was “as good as it’s going to get”, and they didn’t want to leave the Justice Department without an Attorney General for the rest of Bush’s term. Of course, that’s the kind of attitude that gets you people like Mukasey.
November 18, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mukasey's reputation is shot to hell. And he did it himself.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
November 18, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, as the saying goes. That used to be a maxim, a base concept of how a justice system must work. Now it's trash, just like the DOJ.
The only answer to the politicization of the DOJ is for some of these hacks to be prosecuted and convicted. Otherwise, just like Watergate and Iran Contra and Scooter Libby, even when the criminals get caught, they don't get punished. And next time around the same gang just commit bigger crimes.
Until some Bush appointees go to jail for breaking the law for partisan politics, as people like Monica Goodling have already admitted they did, then the simple fact is Bush won and the rule of law lost. So far I don't see any change coming to that status quo.
November 18, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to warn people that they were going to "turn the other cheek."
One of these days, someone will listen to me.
At least the betting is now that the Siegelman case will be tossed by Christmas...
The Locust Fork Journal
November 18, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink