« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Siegelman: Stevens Case Is Dropped, So Why Not Mine?
For Don Siegelman, DOJ's decision on Ted Stevens just adds insult to injury.
"There seems to be substantial evidence of prosecutorial and other misconduct in my case, that would dwarf the allegations in the Stevens case," the former Alabama governor told TPMmuckraker in an interview moments ago.
Referring to Attorney General Eric Holder, Siegelman said that while he supports the Stevens decision, "I hope that [Holder] will take a look at some of the other cases that are buried on his desk."
This morning, the Justice Department announced it was dropping the charges against Stevens, citing prosecutorial misconduct -- specifically, the government's failure to hand over key evidence to the defense. In response, Stevens declared today: "I always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed."
Siegelman has suffered a different fate. He was convicted and jailed in 2006, in connection to his appointment of a campaign contributor to a state board. Though he is now out of jail pending his appeal, the conviction is still standing, despite evidence that the prosecution was politically motivated -- a witness has given sworn testimony that Karl Rove was involved -- and despite numerous credible allegations of misconduct on the part of prosecutors, jurors, and the judge. Some of the most compelling allegations involve withholding of evidence by prosecutors from the defense.
Siegelman is clearly alive to the parallels between the two cases, along with their starkly different results, at least as of now. "That dichotomy did not escape me," he told TPMmuckraker.
"There was quite a bit of underlying facts that distinguished the [Stevens] case from mine," he said, while making clear he respects the former Alaska senator. "I was not charged with a single penny of wrong-doing."
Siegelman said he hoped that the mass of evidence that his prosecution was tainted would "warrant consideration [by Holder] of doing the same thing in my case as he did in Senator Stevens'."
And, as he has before, Siegelman framed his case as part of a wider effort to get to truth about politicization of the Justice Department during the Bush years. "Who at the Department of Justice abused their power, and why?" he asked. "Was Karl Rove directing the show?"
We may start to get some answers on that when Rove testifies before a House committee soon. As for Siegelman, he's waiting on a decision by a full appeals court as to whether to hear his appeal, after an appeal on the narrow issue of juror misconduct was largely rejected by a three-judge panel last month.
Josh
Zachary
Looks like they are trading prisoners to me.
They clear Stevens, which sets the stage for clearing DS
April 1, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clever. I hope you're right.
April 1, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that is what is going on, but I hope it ends up being true. Far more likely is that Stevens is getting off easy out of a bit of "Senatorial courtesy" from his former colleague Obama. If Obama is trading anything it is the respect and gratitude of Stevens' longtime Republican friends in the Senate, but not for Siegelman.
April 1, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine that you are right on this, Oleeb. The republicans would never show gratitude to any Democrat; they don't know how to respect anyone except their own. If Obama doesn't understand that by now he should.
Could it be that the prosecutorial misconduct was so egregious that it was simply the right thing to do?
April 2, 2009 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
They could have retried it, they already had him convicted once.
April 2, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The big difference is that Stevens is a Republican and Siegelman is a Democrat, and
the Democrats are still afraid of irritating the Republicans.
Dropping Stevens appeal will allow the judge in that case to declare Stevens "not guilty" on appeal and won't irritate the Republicans while Siegelman's case is further along in the legal process so his appeal is a whole different story.
We can all wish Siegelman the best.
If every politicial was arrested and convicted every time they appointed anyone who donated money to their campaign, all the politicians who ever appointed anyone would be in jail.
April 1, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
i agree. i love how dropping the stevens case is considered "bi-partisan" "reasonable" and "balanced." democrats really need to grow a pair. don't just call them criminals when you are running for office and then back off from those claims when you are in power. it's really disappointing, although not surprising at all.
http://eguiders.com/exclusive/top-15-political-moments-in-youtube-history
April 2, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Siegelmans presiding judge should be in jail. I would toss Martin, Canary and anyone else from Alabama that looked at me wrong.
If they don't pardon Siegelman, then they must prosecute Jeff Sessions. After all he took the same money, in the same manner from the same man.
April 1, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of all the political prosecutions in the last 8 years, and this is the one that the DOJ , in hindsight, thinks should be the first for overturning because of prosecutorial conduct?
I read that as of early 2008. 70% of political prosecutions was against Democrats, while only 10% were against Republicans. So it really does look like King George was right, that you can't trust those dirty Dem pols(LOL, when one of their 10% ers is the first overturn.
If this is the first of many of overturning corrupt prosecutions, this is a good baby step.
However, if prosecutions like Siegelman's and others aren't also overturned, it is an empty gesture, for what reasons I have no idea. If more controversial political prosecutions are looked at through"new eyes", this might prove for many what has always been suspected about the Bush DOJ. If no wrong doing is found thru the "new eyes", than people like me will have to give Bush an apology.
April 1, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the new evidence that the AG cited, they had no choice but to drop it. There are probably a number of "political Prosecutions" including Siegleman's, that need review, but this new instance of not providing to the defense the statement of a prosecution witness that contradicted his sworn tesimony is way beyond the pale. I assume that that the responsible attornies will be fired for incompetence, but they should be prosecuted criminally or at least sent to jail for contempt and the bar association should look closely at their behavior. The real question is "did they do it intentionally", or was it simply the result of hiring incompetent ideological hacks?
April 1, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This gives The Administration a reason to clean out the Public Corruption Section. The corruption of this section has been a discussion point for a long time.
What they can the “loyal opposition” say; the first case intervened on being that of a Republican.
April 1, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
i have to say, this morning when i heard the cable news announcer say "doj drops charges on high profile case" i thought for sure it was seigelman. imagine my disappointment to hear the details.
April 2, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am so sick of this whole administration. First off, Stevens is guilty as hell, whatever you can say about prosecutorial misconduct. Send him to the back of the line. Second, Siegelman is innocent.
But Obama, in is moronic attempt to be post-partisan, gives Stevens a pass and does jack shit for Siegelman.
Appalling.
April 2, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid I agree with Johann.
Just another instance of the spineless Democrats bending over (as Rush would say) to be nicey nicey to the ReThuglicans, who must be laughing at how lame the Democrats are.
April 2, 2009 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, this was the DoJ being forced to this issue thanks to pending contempt charges against the Bush era prosecutors responsible for the Stevens case.
While I think Seigelman does have a strong case for having his conviction overturned and several people involved in his prosecution sanctioned, he has not yet got any judges to rule in his favor strongly enough to achieve those results. Lacking that, Holder may be reviewing the case but isn't going to be acting as quickly as he did in the Stevens case.
April 2, 2009 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. The DOJ wasn't forced into anything. The option was there to let the pending contempt charges continue against the Bush era prosecutors.
Your explanation would be just another case of the Democrats defending Republican wrongdoing and providing skirts for them to hide behind.
.
April 2, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
They need to expose just who were involved in the Siegelman case so that civil actions can be taken against these thugs. Former Gov Siegelman was incarcerated, beaten while in prison, plus incurred substantial legal fees. Besides bringing justice to those behind this outrageous case, he should be compensated very handsomely so that others will not think about doing this in the future.
April 2, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Stevens is old? Criminals do age. So a corrupt Alaskan political contributor gives conflicting statements? It IS very hard to remember which lie he told when. So Bush era prosecutors are incompetent? Duh! This whole thing smells very bad. Holder needs to quickly undo all the shady, Rovian convictions of Democrats from the toxic Bush "Justice Department." Free Siegelman!
April 2, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what I have read, there was prosecutorial misconduct in both the Steven and the Siegelman cases. Also from what I have read, they both appear to have been guilty of what they were accused of. Do I care? Too busy organizing the Stalk Bill O'Reilly campaign!
April 2, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to reluctantly agree with the commentors who have suggested that Seigleman's case may not get the attention it deserves because the Democrats are still afraid of being called names by the GOP. Reid epitomizes that craven attitude but he is certainly not the only coward in the caucus.
April 2, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the main problem is that Siegelman's case is procedurally more difficult at this point. The procedural posture of the Stevens case was that the judge was already considering motions to throw out the verdict because of malfeasance, and Stevens hadn't yet been sentenced, let alone filed an appeal.
The procedural status of Siegelman's case is that it was on appeal (briefed an argued) before Obama was even inaugurated. It was, IMHO, absolutely necessary for Holder to let the Court of Appeals render a decision. Unwinding the Siegelman conviction will require Holder and Co. to do the kind of investigation that was already underway with the Stevens prosecutors.
I think Siegelman's prosecution was politically motivated, but Holder can't just say that or rely only on Siegelman or his lawyers, he has to have some kind of independent basis for supporting that contention.
Also, having let Stevens skate, he will have a lot more credibility if and when he exculpates Siegelman.
April 2, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with Siegelman because it is quite unusual for a "Brady violation" to result in a complete dismissal of charges after a jury conviction.
Even a new trial is hard to come by:
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/04/everybodys-got-holder-heart.html
April 2, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just hope that the Obama admin is not doing all of this (Stevens, not investigating the Bush admin war crimes, etc.) in the hope that it will somehow immunize him from having the next Repub admin come after him.
I would not be surprised if the next Repub admin went after Obama for treaty violations for NOT investigating Bush and company...
April 2, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just can't understand why the Democrats are not taking advantage of the current situation, and holding the Republicans down by the throat until they are dead. If we let them get up they will surely try to kill us. How is it that the DOJ can get an indictment against Blagoievich in less than 3 months but can't seem to get anyone from the Bush administration to answer for anything. It's appalling.
April 3, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The democrats in Congress seem to be throwing bones to the repugs(to borrow a name) and stones at their own dems. They may get thrown over in the next election just for wimpiness. I just do not understand why the dems keep bowing and scraping to the repugs.
April 3, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink